Preamble

The House—after the Adjournment on 27th May for the Whitsun Recess—met at half-past Two o'clock.

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES

Land Commission Bill (Betterment Levy)

Mr. Rippon: asked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources what is his estimate of the net yield of the betterment levy on the transactions in law of the kind set out in Cases A to E of the Land Commission Bill.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources whether he will now make a statement setting out his calculations as to the expected net yield in a full year of the levy proposed in last Session's Land Commission Bill.

The Minister of Land and Natural Resources (Mr. Frederick Willey): I estimate the gross yield of the betterment levy at 40 per cent. in a full year to be about £80 million. The levy will affect the amount which would otherwise be collected under existing taxes, but information is not available upon which to base an estimate of its extent because these taxes are assessed on quite a different basis and are subject to different exemptions.

Mr. Rippon: Is it not extraordinary that the Minister should seek to levy a tax when he has no idea at all of its net yield? Is the position that he does not know—in which case will he undertake to give the Committee some indication of the position—or is it simply that he dare not say what the yield will be because it might be thought to be

derisory in comparison with the complexities of collecting it?

Mr. Willey: I can allay the right hon. and learned Gentleman's anxieties. The net yield will be substantial. That is quite clear. But we cannot go further than this and make a detailed estimate for the reasons that I have given.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the right hon. Gentleman cannot give the House even an approximate figure of the net yield, how does he know that it is substantial enough to justify the very high cost of collecting it?

Mr. Willey: I have said that it is substantial—one can reach that conclusion—but one cannot go further and particularise because of the different bases of Corporation Tax and Capital Gains Tax and the different exemptions.

Reservoirs (Farm Land)

Sir D. Renton: asked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources if he will take steps, by legislation or otherwise, to prevent more farm land from being flooded to make reservoirs for public water supply.

Mr. Willey: No, Sir. Other means of storing water will be investigated wherever they exist, but unavoidably some farm land will have to be taken for reservoirs. Wherever possible the less good farm land will be used in preference to the better.

Sir D. Renton: Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour, wherever possible, to adopt the large-scale and modern solution to this problem, rather than the old-fashioned solution which involves nibbling away at ever-increasing quantities of good agricultural land?

Mr. Willey: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate, we are vigorously examining the possibilities of large-scale water supply. This is a long-term policy, but meanwhile, unavoidably, we shall have to depend upon some water being supplied from reservoirs.

Millington Pastures, Pocklington

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources what correspondence he has received


from the Ramblers Association, Yorkshire, East Riding Area, about the ploughing up of Millington Pastures, common land near Pocklington, and the protest ramble of this organisation in November, 1965; and what action he has taken.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources (Mr. Arthur Skeffington): The Department has not been approached. Two years the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the previous administration, who was then responsible for commons, declined a request from the local Ramblers Association to intervene because, as my hon. Friend will realise, the Minister has no power to settle disputes. However, if the status of the land is in question, those interested should apply—in due course—for the land to be registered under the Commons Registration Act, 1965.

Mr. Johnson: That appears to be a helpful Answer. Can the hon. Gentleman tell me what person or persons can take action in this matter?

Mr. Skeffington: Any person can apply to the local registration authorities for the status of the common to be determined. Such a person does not have to have a legal interest in the land.

Ordnance Survey (Establishment)

Mr. Murton: asked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources why another committee is being set up to consider changes in the establishment of the Ordnance Survey; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Skeffington: The interdepartmental committee which reported last year examined which posts could be filled by civilians. The present body is working out the best ways of recruitment, arrangements for training and career structures.

Mr. Murton: Is it not a fact that this will be the fourth committee which has investigated this problem? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a certain officer of a professional association has said that the general position is now absurd?

Mr. Skeffington: I am not aware of the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. I suppose that

it is true that if one takes the period since the last war, may be even an earlier period, there have been more than the two Committees referred to. But there are only two Committees dealing with this, and their objective is to get as many civilians as possible into the service in the best and most appropriate way.

Leasehold Enfranchisement

Mr. Luard: asked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources what is the reason for the upper limit of rateable value of £200 for houses outside the London area qualifying for leasehold enfranchisement under the proposals in the White Paper on Leasehold Reform.

Mr. Willey: It seems appropriate that this legislation, one of the main purposes of which is to improve the security of tenure of leaseholders, should apply to the same class of property as do the Rent Acts.

Mr. Luard: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there are certain areas in the country, including my own constituency of Oxford, where a very large proportion—in some cases about half—of the leaseholders are excluded from the privileges of enfranchisement by the present regulations, and that it is very difficult to explain to those people why it is just for one class of leaseholder to be enfranchised and not just for another class?

Mr. Willey: Overall, rather less than 1 per cent. would appear to be excluded outside London. I will certainly look at cases such as those my hon. Friend has mentioned.

Mr. Faulds: asked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources when he will introduce the Bill to implement the proposals of the White Paper on leasehold enfranchisement.

Mr. Willey: During the present Session.

Mr. Faulds: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that brief Answer—it was very much to the point—may I press on him the urgency of this legislation—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] May I ask my right hon. Friend to bear in mind that there is a great deal of urgency


in this matter, remembering that, as in the case of my constituency, both the folk concerned and many of the leases concerned are moving towards the end of their span? Would he see that the formula decided on to settle the purchase price—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]I—am nearly there—of the freehold should be as low as possible, realising, as he must do—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must get there more quickly.

Mr. Willey: As my hon. Friend is aware, we have taken steps to protect leaseholders whose leases expire before the Bill becomes law. I am well aware of the urgent need for this Bill. My hon. Friend will be comforted to know that we are making good progress.

Sir C. Osborne: While protecting the leaseholders, would the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what will happen in the case of the Oxford and Cambridge colleges? If they lose a great deal of revenue, will the Government find an alternative source of income for them?

Mr. Willey: We have considered the position of the Oxford and Cambridge colleges. We are quite sure that the steps which we are taking are fair to both parties.

Mr. Rippon: What is the Minister doing about the situation which is arising particularly in London where the announcement of the Government's policy has simply resulted in putting up the prices of leaseholds?

Mr. Willey: That is not the case at all. Our experience is to the contrary.

Mr. Moyle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some landlords are asking exorbitant sums of money for initial repairs before agreeing to statutory tenancies being given to tenants whose leases have fallen in since 8th December, 1964? Is he further aware that these tenants will be unable to take advantage of the Leasehold Reform Bill unless quick action is taken?

Mr. Willey: My hon. Friend should call the attention of his constituents to the provisions of the 1954 Act and to the assurance given, to which I have already referred.

Council on Tribunals (Land Commission Bill)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources what views were expressed to him by the Council on Tribunals relative to Clause 8 and the Second Schedule of the Land Commission Bill now before Parliament.

Mr. Willey: None, Sir.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Did the right hon. Gentleman consult the Council? If so, did it give him any advice?

Mr. Willey: The Council, on its own initiative, asked for some information which we gave it.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS

Industrial Civil Servants (Road Haulage Workers)

Mr. Biffen: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what plans he has to apply common rates and conditions to road haulage workers employed as industrial civil servants irrespective of their employment before 1963 with service works organisations.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Public Building and Works (Mr. James Boyden): Discussions with the unions on rationalisation will be resumed after the report of the Prices and Incomes Board is received.

Mr. Biffen: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this anomaly causes very considerable irritation to those involved? Can he give an undertaking that the Government will take very speedy action when the Report of the Prices and Incomes Board is received?

Mr. Boyden: Until depots were integrated there was only irritation, and it was not particularly serious. But I give an undertaking that once the Report has been received negotiations will be resumed.

Hyde Park (May Day Meetings)

Mr. Hunt: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will reconsider the granting of future permission for the holding of May Day


meetings in Hyde Park, in view of the public nuisance and disturbance created.

The Minister of Public Building and Works (Mr. R. E. Prentice): No, Sir. It is not the Government's policy to trample on democratic traditions.

Mr. Hunt: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this year hundreds of people trying to rest and relax had their afternoons completely ruined by the amplified inanities booming across Hyde Park? Why cannot these May Day meetings be confined to the area of Speakers' Corner or the people concerned asked to manage without their extremely powerful loudspeaker equipment?

Mr. Prentice: It has been a tradition for a very long time for May Day rallies to take place in Hyde Park. Although I can understand hon. Members opposite getting worried about the popularity of Left-wing ideas these days, I should not have thought that they would propose these methods for suppressing them.

Mr. Shinwell: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the Opposition are worried not about the May Day meetings but because the views expressed are anathema to them?

Mr. Prentice: Yes. It is always open to them to try to organise May Day meetings of their own.

Mr. Rippon: While successive Governments have allowed these meetings freedom of speech, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will address himself to the point about the use of amplifiers? That is what causes so much complaint.

Mr. Prentice: I think that amplifiers are necessary and usual at meetings of this sort. If what was said was too loud and carried too far, I should like to have details of it, because it might well be suggested, reasonably, to those concerned, whoever they might be, that they have the meeting elsewhere.

Mr. Frederic Harris: Did any Ministers of the present Government take part in any of these May Day meetings?

Mr. Prentice: I would need notice of that question. I believe so. Certainly I have had the pleasure of taking part in them in the hon. Member's constituency.

Middlesex Guildhall

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what approach he has made to the Greater London Authority for the transfer of the Middlesex Guildhall to the control of his Department.

Mr. Prentice: Exploratory discussions have taken place at official level.

Mr. Lewis: May we have an assurance that finality will be reached in this matter before next May Day? When is it likely to be?

Mr. Prentice: I cannot give a date. I have said that the discussions are exploratory, and they may take a little time.

Building Materials (Prices)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he will enumerate those building materials included in the early warning system; and if he will refer to the National Board for Prices and Incomes the rising prices in this sphere.

Mr. Prentice: Bricks, cement, sand and gravel, flat glass and plasterboard are included in the early warning system. I do not consider any reference to the Board necessary at present. I shall consider any proposed price increases as they are notified to me.

Mr. Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend say on what basis these commodities were chosen for reference to the Board? Does he recall the information from Fife County Council which I sent to him indicating that electrical wiring cables, which are not in the list he has given, have gone up by rather more than 50 per cent. in the last year? Does not he think that that is a case for reference to the Board?

Mr. Prentice: The commodities were chosen in relation to construction, as they were in relation to other industries, because of their strategic importance and because these were commodities over which there is domestic control and in which imports do not play a large part. A number of items listed by my hon. Friend when he wrote to us were items in which


the price of imported raw materials played a very large part indeed.

Mr. Sharples: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider referring to the 13oard the effect of the Selective Employment Tax on the cost of construction?

Mr. Prentice: No.

Bury St. Edmunds Abbey

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works ',why he is proposing to demolish the houses built into the west front of Bury St. Edmunds Abbey; and on whose advice he judges the merits of these houses.

Mr. Boyden: To show the abbey to the best advantage. On expert advice.

Mr. Griffiths: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is very strong feeling in Bury St. Edmunds about this proposal? Does he realise that those who live in these houses do not accept the Ministry's description of them as being ugly and lacking in facilities? So long as there is a housing shortage, will not he realise that it is better to leave people where they are in their homes and not knock their houses down in order to show off the ruins around them?

Mr. Boyden: The aesthetics are a matter of opinion. The buildings are owned by the borough council. We have asked that the council should mitigate any hardship in taking the buildings down. But no representations have been made to us that there is an outcry.

Sir H. Harrison: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to specify the expert advice, because in my view experts give opinions both ways?

Mr. Boyden: The Inspectorate of Ancient Monuments in my Ministry is very well esteemed internationally. It is the Inspectorate's opinion which we have sought in this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH

Artificial Kidney Machines

Sir S. McAdden: asked the Minister of Health how many artificial kidney machines are available within the

National Health Service; and what is the price per machine.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): There are at present about 100 patients suffering from chronic renal failure being treated on kidney machines. There will be a substantial increase in facilities for this form of treatment in the next twelve months. Adequate facilities already exist for treating acute renal failure. The cost of machines and their associated equipment varies from about £2,000 to about £3,500 according to type.

Sir S. McAdden: But has the Minister's attention been called to a B.B.C. programme in which it was said that over 2,000 people died every year through the absence of these machines? Would not the resources of the National Health Service be better employed on providing machines to keep people alive rather than providing for the abolition of prescription charges in order that people can get aspirins without paying for them?

Mr. Robinson: Ignoring the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question—because I think that this is a very serious matter—may I tell him that there is no reliable means of assessing how many patients might benefit from intermittent dialysis. The limiting factors in the development of the facility are the provision of accommodation for trained staff and equipment, although at the moment we have sufficient equipment to meet all orders from hospitals. Development is not at present limited by shortage of money.

Dr. John Dunwoody: When bringing in these new machines, which we are all very pleased to hear about, will my right hon. Friend see that they are more evenly distributed throughout the country so that it is no longer necessary for desperately ill patients to be transported considerable distances to be given this life-saving treatment?

Mr. Robinson: That is certainly one of the ideas of establishing wider facilities. I have made funds available for the establishment or extension of these dialysis units at 15 hospitals and other units are being considered by hospital authorities. Each of these units will have at least ten beds.

Mr. Lubbock: Does the Minister consider that patients with chronic renal failure can be treated in their own homes? What steps is he taking to ensure that the necessary machines will be provided by local authorities as well as by the hospitals?

Mr. Robinson: This must be a matter for hospital authorities. Home dialysis presents special problems. It is important to evaluate them before commending any widespread extension of this practice. A pilot study is in progress in London and a further pilot trial is planned in the North of England. We must see what results these trials produce before moving too fast in home dialysis.

Drug Addiction (Advisory Committee)

Mr. Deedes: asked the Minister of Health whether he will now announce the composition and terms of reference of the advisory committee on drug addiction.

Mr. K. Robinson: I hope an announcement will be made soon.

Mr. Deedes: Can the Minister say why there has been such a long delay between the presentation of the Report of the Brain Committee and any action by his Ministry?

Mr. Robinson: Yes, Sir. A great deal of preparatory study and consultation between Government Departments and the professional and other bodies concerned is involved. I am pressing ahead in conjuction with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Home Secretary, and I am anxious that the committee should be set up and should start work as soon as possible.

Dr. Gray: Will my right hon. Friend consider including in the terms of reference the over-prescription of drugs by medical practitioners to registered addicts? The amounts of these which are reaching the market are increasing. They are much cheaper on the black market to young people than they have been hitherto. More and more are becoming addicted, and this is becoming a graver social problem.

Mr. Robinson: I am sure that this problem will be within the ambit of the work of the committee when it is set up.

Sir R. Cary: Is drug addiction in this country as great as it has been made out to be in certain recent sensational Press articles?

Mr. Robinson: Without knowing the articles to which the hon. Member refers it is difficult to say. It is a serious problem and there is evidence that it has been increasing.

Disposable Syringe Needles (Personal Case)

Mr. Orbach: asked the Minister of Health when the supply of disposable syringe needles for the daughter of a constituent of the hon. Member for Stockport, South, asked for in November 1965 and promised in February 1966, will be made available.

Mr. K. Robinson: I am informed that disposable needles have been supplied on several occasions.

Mr. Orbach: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he has been wrongly informed and that he should make further inquiries? I have letters from my constituents saying that these disposable needles were provided only when this Question appeared on the Order Paper.

Mr. Robinson: Because there is a conflict of evidence it does not necessarily follow that I have been misinformed. I am told that 50 needles were sent by post to the child's home address on 4th June, which is the occasion to which my hon. Friend has referred, and also that on two previous occasions sets of 30 needles were given to the child's parents.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITALS

Chelsea Postgraduate Medical Centre

Mr. Worsley: asked the Minister of Health when he intends to start the proposed postgraduate hospital development in Chelsea.

Mr. K. Robinson: The Hospital Building Programme (Cmnd. 3000) envisages a start on building of the Chelsea Postgraduate Medical Centre in the period after 1969–70.

Mr. Worsley: Is the right hon. Gentleman sure that this is the right site for this development? Is he aware that Chelsea is a residential area in the heart of London and that there has been so much loss of residential accommodation in the heart of London that it is important that the Government should not take a lead in reducing it even further?

Mr. Robinson: As I think the hon. Member knows, because he was connected with the Department at the time, the concept of this group of postgraduate teaching hospitals was first announced in June, 1961, and provision was made in the first Hospital Plan produced in January, 1962. As at present advised, I do not see any better site available for the scheme.

Mr. Worsley: asked the Minister A Health whether he will give an undertaking that the proposed postgraduate hospital development in Chelsea will not involve any demolition of housing.

Mr. K. Robinson: No, Sir.

Mr. Worsley: Is the Minister aware hat this will cause great concern and that, for the reasons which I have already given, there is an absolute urgency that the amount of residential accommodation in Chelsea should not be reduced, and that failure to give this undertaking will, therefore, cause concern in my constituency?

Mr. Robinson: I could not give that undertaking and proceed with the scheme. The first phase of the scheme will involve demolition of 20 houses, but not of course before 1970.

Amenity Beds

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Minister of Health how many hospital authorities within the National Health Service have informed him of the results of the review of the arrangements of Section 4 beds as requested in his Circular HM(66)26; and if he will place examples of hospital leaflets which publicise the facilities of amenity beds in the Library.

Mr. K. Robinson: I shall be calling for reports later in the year. Meanwhile I will arrange for sample leaflets to be placed in the Library.

Mr. Pavitt: How many of the regional hospitals boards have not yet replied? Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity of reviewing the whole system of bed allocation by consultants?

Mr. Robinson: I think I am right in saying that the replies from hospital authorities are not yet due. Certainly, I will consider any further steps that need to be taken in connection with pay beds in the light of the replies which I receive.

Commonwealth Countries (Seconded Personnel)

Mr. Tilney: asked the Minister of Health what encouragement he gives to regional hospital boards to second their personnel for a tour in overseas countries of the Commonwealth; and whether those volunteering to go will lose or gain promotion in their home-based jobs.

Mr. K. Robinson: I have asked boards to assist senior hospital medical and dental staff to accept short-term appointments overseas and to agree to second the more junior staff to overseas posts arranged by the Ministry of Overseas Development. New appointments in the hospital service are filled by competition, and any overseas experience of a doctor seeking a higher appointment on return would be taken into account.

Mr. Tilney: Did the right hon. Gentleman call the attention of the boards to the agreement between the Greater London Council and the Government of Nigeria whereby teachers who volunteer for three years get accelerated promotion?

Mr. Robinson: I will look into this. I assure the hon. Member that regional boards have for a very long time been encouraging their doctors to go overseas, certainly since 1952. As for arrangements within the Commonwealth, the hon. Member might be interested in the proceedings of the Commonwealth Medical Conference, which was held last autumn.

Stepping Hill Hospital, Stockport

Mr. Orbach: asked the Minister of Health the reason for the closing of the diabetic clinic at Stepping Hill Hospital, Stock port.

Mr. K. Robinson: The clinic facilities for diabetic patients at Stepping Hill Hospital have not been discontinued.

Mr. Orbach: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituents have been advised that they must in future attend at Macclesfield and that the clinic at Stepping Hill has been closed down? They have further been advised that transport will be provided, but they have to go with sandwiches because they cannot be returned home until after 4 o'clock, which means a whole day in order to attend the clinic.

Mr. Robinson: I will certainly make further inquiries and write to my hon. Friend about some of the specific points which he has made. My information, however, is that there never has been a diabetic clinic at this hospital. The clinic for the area is at Stockport Infirmary. To supplement this service, some diabetic patients are received by the same consultant at his medical clinic at Stepping Hill.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Will the Minister look carefully at this matter, because the general hospital at Macclesfield is an ex-workhouse built in 1842 and, under the new Hospital Plan, the time before rebuilding takes places has been put back six or seven years? Will the Minister consider the whole area, because Stockport and Macclesfield are very badly served in all respects?

Mr. Robinson: I am sure that conditions in the area have been considered very carefully by the regional board in drawing up its plans, but if the hon. Member has any particular question to raise I hope that he will put it on the Order Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF LABOUR

Seamen's Dispute

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Labour if he will make a statement on the progress of the inquiry into the seamen's strike.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mrs. Shirley Williams): I ask my hon. and learned Friend to await the statement which my right hon. Friend will be making later this afternoon.

Mr. Hughes: While thanking the Minister for the letter he wrote to me last Friday, may I ask my hon. Friend whether she realises that it is of the utmost import-

ante to the national economy as well as to the seamen to expedite the settlement of the dispute?

Mrs. Williams: My right hon. Friend is, I repeat, making a statement this afternoon and will be glad to follow up any points that my hon. and learned Friend would like to make.

Oral Answers to Questions — PASSPORTS

Sir S. McAdden: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the annual cost of the organisation for the issue of passports to citizens of the United Kingdom; what is the number of people employed on this work; and whether he will simplify procedure and reduce the cost.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mrs. Eirene White): The cost of passport services in the United Kingdom in 1965 was estimated at £1,354,000 and the average number of staff employed was 838. No comparable figures are available for passport work done by our Consular and other representatives abroad. As regards the simplification of procedures, I refer the hon. Member to the Answer given on 26th May by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Sir D. Kaberry).

Sir S. McAdden: Does not the right hon. Lady consider that we could have some simplification? Is it necessary for passports to be renewed every five years? If it is thought necessary for them to be renewed in this period in order that there should be some resemblance between the photograph and the holder of the passport, may I point out that there is no such resemblance at all? Why should not the passport last much longer than five years?

Mrs. White: I am sure that the hon. Member's passport photograph is highly flattering to him. We have simplified procedure in recent years by the issue of the simpler form of passport which can be used for tourist purposes. I am sure that the hon. Member approves of that step. But it is not unreasonable to suggest that there should be a five-year renewal period.

Mr. Ridsdale: Do the numbers include the numbers of people employed at


the Ministry of Labour in issuing passports? Could not all this be done by the Foreign Office rather than in two offices?

Mrs. White: It was for the convenience of the public that the passports were issued by the Ministry of Labour local offices. The number of staff given is taking an average over the whole, and it includes the main passport offices and the best estimate we can make of the amount of work involved at the local offices of the Ministry of Labour.

Oral Answers to Questions — VIETNAM

Medical and Welfare Assistance

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what medical and welfare assistance Her Majesty's Government are giving in Vietnam; and if he will extend this assistance.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Walter Padley): A British paediatric team of about ten members will arrive shortly in Saigon to work at the Children's Hospital there for a period of five years. Her Majesty's Government have already send 20 mobile anaesthetic machines to Vietnam and are supplying 20 more. In addition we shall be sending equipment to the Children's Hospital where our team will work. We shall consider other opportunities for helping in the medical field as they arise.

Mr. Taylor: While thanking the Minister for that encouraging Answer, may I ask him whether he does not agree that it was unfortunate—when an international welfare organisation provides beds in Europe for child victims of this war and appeals for air transport help—that, according to a letter sent to me last week, it was left to a private airline to provide help? If beds for treatment are available in Europe for child victims, may we have an assurance that the Government will provide air transport?

Mr. Padley: No request was made to the British Government for assistance. Needless to say we should consider any requests made. It is true that a request was made to the American Government, but in the light of the correspondence between the hon. Member and myself,

I hope that he realises that the Americans have made very substantial contributions to the relief of suffering and to medical aid in Vietnam.

Mr. Rankin: Will my hon. Friend assure us that the team which has gone to Saigon will give medical aid to all victims of the Vietnam war whether they come from North or from South Vietnam?

Mr. Padley: Of course that is so. It is sited in Saigon and the casualties inflicted on the Vietcong equally with others will receive humanitarian assistance.

Commonwealth Mission

Mr. G. Campbell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the present individual membership of the Commonwealth Mission on Vietnam.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart): The Commonwealth Prime Ministers meeting last year appointed my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the President of Ghana and the Prime Ministers of Nigeria and of Trinidad and Tobago to be the members of the Mission. Any variation of membership would be a matter for the Commonwealth Prime Ministers collectively to consider.

Mr. Campbell: Does that mean that ex-President Nkrumah is still a member of the Mission and that there is only one other member besides the Prime Minister of Britain? Since the need for a fair and honourable settlement in Vietnam is as great now as it was a year ago when the Mission was announced, may I ask whether the Government have any purposive plan to bring this about?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Member knows that the Commonwealth Mission is only one of many attempts which the Government have made to get a conference on Vietnam, but the Question refers to this particular method, which would require the collective decision of Commonwealth Prime Ministers.

Hon. Members: What about Nkrumah.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Gordon Campbell—next Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS COMMITTEE (AFRICAN TOUR)

Mr. G. Campbell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the United Kingdom, although a member of the United Nations Committee on the ending of Colonialism, has not sent a representative on the Committee's tour of African countries.

Mrs. White: As the British representative told the Committee of 24 on 16th March, Her Majesty's Government did not consider that a further tour of Africa by the whole Committee at this time would result in any advantage commensurate with the expense involved. A decision not to go on the tour in no way affects our willingness to co-operate in the constructive work of the Committee.

Mr. Campbell: Does this mean that the Government have decided that it is better to boycott the United Nations Committee rather than attend and use their membership and their moderating influence?

Mrs. White: There is no question at all of boycotting. This Committee went to Africa on an extended tour last year. It is now engaged upon a tour of some 70 persons, lasting six weeks, going around the five capitals, and we felt that this was not the best way to employ the funds of the United Nations or the time of the members of the Committee.

Mr. Paget: Will my hon. Friend tell me whether this is the Committee which gave full endorsement to the activities of the terrorists in Aden and said that it was not interested in the evidence of Her Majesty's Government since Britain was a colonial Power?

Mrs. White: If my hon. and learned Friend wishes to have a complete answer, he should put down a Question. I think that he is referring to the same Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISARMAMENT

Mr. Blaker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what new proposals on disarmament have been put forward by Her Majesty's Government since 15th October, 1964.

Mr. M. Stewart: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 28th February. The Government wish to make progress in the disarmament field, particularly on non-proliferation and a comprehensive nuclear test ban. To this end, we play our full part in the negotiations at the Eighteen Nation Disarmament Committee. In present circumstances it is negotiation rather than new proposals that is needed.

Mr. Blaker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has still not mentioned one new proposal on disarmament which the Government have put forward since they came to power in 1964? What has happened to the new initiative on disarmament which the people of this country were promised in the Labour Party manifesto of 1964?

Mr. Stewart: When I took over office the Eighteen Nation Disarmament Committee was not sitting. One of my first tasks was to represent to the Soviet Government the desirability of their agreeing with the American Government on its recall. It has now been recalled. Our representative there has played a prominent part, and is still doing so, in the hope that we shall be able to reach an agreement.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Is there not good sense in the proposals of the non-aligned Governments to ban all but the smallest nuclear tests since these can now be identified and located and since four-fifths of a loaf is surely better than none?

Mr. Stewart: As I said on an earlier occasion, we are examining this proposal.

Sir A. Douglas-Home: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember the scathing comments which the Prime Minister used to make when he was at this Box on the activities of Lord Harlech and others of my right hon. Friends? Is it not time, after almost two years, that we had one result in this field from the Government?

Mr. Stewart: I trust that we shall have a result, but, as the right hon. Gentleman knows very well, this is not something which can be achieved by one Government alone.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPACE VEHICLES (DEBRIS)

Mr. Brooks: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the accumulating space debris circling the earth, Her Majesty's Government will propose in the United Nations Organisation that international action be taken to reduce the growing danger of such debris causing devastation upon re-entry above built-up areas.

Mrs. White: The United Nations have tried for some two years without success to agree on a draft convention on liability for damage caused by objects from Outer Space. As it has proved so difficult to achieve agreement even on this basic legal aspect of the problem I doubt whether the action suggested by my hon. Friend would be effective.

Mr. Brooks: In view of the fact that there are now over 400 objects in orbit, and in view of the fact that it is likely that much heavier booster stages will be used in the moon programmes of some Powers, does not my right hon. Friend agree that we should continue to press for some such action to be taken before the risks which are now apparent become even more serious?

Mrs. White: Certainly we should wish to do anything possible to meet what may be a difficult situation. I am advised—I am only an innumerate Minister at the Foreign Office—that only in exceptional cases would space debris survive being burned out by re-entry into the atmosphere.

Oral Answers to Questions — NUCLEAR WEAPONS

Mr. Blaker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been achieved towards the conclusion of an agreement to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.

Mr. M. Stewart: Amendments to the Western draft Treaty of last August were tabled in the Eighteen Nation Disarmament Committee at Geneva on 21st March. We believe these represent a considerable step forward. We hope that progress will be made when the texts are further discussed in detail at the new session beginning tomorrow in Geneva.

Mr. Blaker: Does not the Foreign Secretary agree that this problem is becoming increasingly urgent? Does he agree with his noble Friend the Minister of State for Disarmament that we are unlikely to see progress until N.A.T.O. has decided how to deal with the question of nuclear sharing and that the best way of doing so would be by way of consultation and not by a joint nuclear force? Will he take this opportunity of making clear his agreement with that thesis?

Mr. Stewart: I certainly agree with the hon. Member about the urgency of this question and with what was said by my noble Friend. The latter part of his question is such that another Question should be put down about it.

Mr. Mendelson: is my right hon. Friend aware that the work of the Minister of State for Disarmament and the concrete proposals which he has put forward have widespread support in the House and in the country and are in themselves a contradiction of the allegations which are being made that the Government are doing nothing in this field? Will he persevere with this policy until he is successful?

Mr. Rankin: In view of what my right hon. Friend said about the Government's desire not to spread nuclear arms, will he assure us that the arms salesman who has recently been appointed will not sell any of these arms to other parts of the world?

Mr. Stewart: I think it has been made quite clear that the Government's policy is against the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Oral Answers to Questions — EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN

Mr. Freeson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what plans Her Majesty's Government have for neutralising the eastern Mediterranean.

Mr. M. Stewart: None, Sir.

Mr. Freeson: Can my right hon. Friend be satisfied with that kind of action. bearing in mind that the political squabbling between N.A.T.O. and the Warsaw Pact Powers in this part of the world is providing a serious obstacle to democratic and peaceful progress in many countries ranging from Greece right round to North Africa?

Mr. Stewart: When my hon. Friend speaks of neutralising the Eastern Mediterranean, that might, for example, be interpreted to mean the exclusion of Greece and Turkey from N.A.T.O. I do not believe that that would be a wise step to take, or that it would contribute to the stability of the area.

Mr. Sharples: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that it is the Government's intention to maintain a British naval presence in that area?

Mr. Stewart: I think that Government policy on this is well known.

Mr. Paget: Can my right hon. Friend tell us whether the covenant of the United Nations does not neutralise not only the eastern Mediterranean but the world?

Mr. Stewart: No, I think not. The Charter of the United Nations, to which I think my hon. and learned Friend refers, provides for regional organisations.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN LAUNCHER DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATION

Mr. Higgins: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether Her Majesty's Government's notes to the Governments of France and Italy concerning the European Launcher Development Organisation notify the intention to withdraw from the Organisation; and what consideration has been given to whether such withdrawal is compatible with the terms of the treaty;
(2) whether Her Majesty's Government's notes to the Governments of France and Italy concerning the European Launcher Development Organisation only notify withdrawal from participation in the European Launcher Development Organisation's programme; and what consideration has been given to whether such withdrawal is compatible with the terms of the treaty.

Mr. M. Stewart: The aide-mémoire delivered to our European Launcher Development Organisation partners on the 3rd June did not notify them of our intention to withdraw from the Organisation. What it stated was that we felt unable to take any further part in finan-

cing the European Launcher Development Organisation programme beyond the extent to which we were already committed. There was no question of our seeking to act in breach of the Treaty. The second parts of the questions do not therefore arise. A copy of the aide-mémoire has been placed in the Library.

Mr. Higgins: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is most undesirable that reports should circulate implying that we were likely to break our treaty obligations without their being immediately contradicted by the Government?

Mr. Stewart: I think that it is clear from the terms of the aide-mémoire that we had no such intention.

Sir G. Nabarro: Would the right hon. Gentleman confirm now that our residual commitment after any rearrangement has been made will be about 27 per cent. of costs?

Mr. Stewart: As for further arrangements, the hon. Gentleman should await a later Question to be answered by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Is it not clear to the Foreign Secretary that he cannot make this distinction and that if Britain leaves the project which E.L.D.O. is conducting that is practically the end of the Organisation?

Mr. Stewart: The point I am making is that we were not proposing to do any-think which was in breach of the treaty. We propose to carry out such commitments as we have but, as the aide-mémoire said, the then proposals did not provide a basis for continued participation beyond our commitments.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Is there to be a statement at the end of Questions on this matter, as the right hon. Gentleman's answers have been entirely unsatisfactory?

Mr. Speaker: There are other Questions on the Order Paper which deal with the whole issue.

Mr. Grimond: Can the Foreign Secretary explain to the House how it got about on the Continent, as it certainly


did, that the Government were to withdraw? Can he give a categorical assurance that E.L.D.O. is going on, or is that still undecided?

Mr. Stewart: I should draw attention to the fact—and this partly answers the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home)—that the basis of this question is the narrow though still important point of whether we were taking action in breach of the treaty. The answer to that is no. We made it clear that the then proposals did not provide a basis for continued participation. It may have been that which gave rise to the impression to which the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) refers. However, questions about fresh proposals are properly dealt with in answer to later Questions.

Oral Answers to Questions — ADEN (BRITISH CASUALTIES)

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many British subjects have been killed in Aden and how many have been wounded there, by terrorist attacks between 1st January and 31st May, 1966.

Mr. Padley: In South Arabia, including Aden and the Protectorate, eight killed and 111 wounded.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Can my hon. Friend say whether there have been signs of diminution in these acts of terrorism in recent weeks?

Mr. Padley: I am afraid not. One must hope that the initiative which is being taken by the Federal Government in convening a conference to implement the United Nations Resolutions and to ensure a political settlement will meet with the response which my right hon. Friend desires.

Oral Answers to Questions — CENTRAL EUROPE

Mr. Freeson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will publish in HANSARD a list of the steps taken by Her Majesty's Government in pursuit of a policy of neutralising central Europe, as proposed in the Foreign Affairs section of the Labour Party's publication, "The New Britain".

Mr. M. Stewart: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State to the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens) on 12th May.

Mr. Freeson: Will my right hon. Friend accept that there has been no initiative whatsoever since we came to power in October, 1964, towards implementing this policy of the Labour Party? Will he accept what many of us believe that the reason for this is that there has been strong pressure put upon him by officials in the Foreign Office counter to the policy laid down by the Labour Party on this matter?

Mr. Stewart: No, I would not accept that. My hon. Friend must understand that in statements of Labour Party policy there are both the matters to which he refers and a statement of firm support for N.A.T.O. Progress on the lines which he wants and which I want has to be made in consultation with our allies. The passage to which he refers in the publication "The New Britain" says:
To achieve further progress a heavy responsibility rests on the Soviet Union to assist in providing facilities for effective inspection.

Mr. G. Campbell: As it is stated on page 21 of that document that the Labour Party had already put forward constructive proposals on this subject, will the Foreign Secretary consider publishing those proposals and any action taken on them since October, 1964?

Mr. Stewart: This has been dealt with, as I said in my main Answer, and it has also been dealt with in debate. The essential point at issue is this: I believe that it is good sense to want to uphold firmly the alliance to which we belong. At the same time, it is important to work for the relaxation of tension. It is desirable not to be slow in pursuit of the objective of relaxation of tension, but in pursuit of that we cannot throw away the present reality of the alliance. It is the problem of combining these two things which is difficult.

Mr. Dickens: Will my right hon. Friend pay some attention to the real situation in Europe today and will he take a look at the position of Roumania? We had a remarkable statement from that country over the weekend. Will he not take that as providing a basis for a new


initiative in central Europe towards fulfilling Labour's policy in this direction?

Mr. Stewart: I will certainly look at that. I want to make it clear that it is the Government's intention—and this was made clear at the recent meeting in Brussels—to secure relaxation of tension between the two groups which at present divide Europe. But I repeat that this is something which has to be done in consultation with our allies. As was pointed out in "The New Britain", the degree of progress which can be made depends on the actions not only of one side, but of the other, too.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

International Language Club (Croydon Premises)

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: asked the hon. and learned Member for Brigg, as Second Church Estates Commissioner, what arrangements the Church Commissioners have made with the East Croydon Development Company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Wates, the builders, to evict the International Language Club from their present premises in Croydon; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: The Church Commissioners have made no arrangements for evictions. The East Croydon Estate Company, which is jointly owned by the Commissioners and Wates Ltd., own a number of properties occupied by the International Language Club. Most of the leases expired in 1964 and the sites are required for an approved residential redevelopment. Three-year extensions of leases were granted in respect of some properties and two-year extensions to 24th June, 1966, in the case of six. A further year's extension has already been arranged for three of these six properties and an extension until the end of the year has been offered for the other three.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that the International Language Club is a remarkably successful piece of international government, that it has rendered great service over nearly 30 years to thousands of students from overseas, that in

recent times it has been a victim of Rachmanism at its worst, that its founder Mr. Driscoll was nearly beaten to death in his bed two or three years ago and that there have been mysterious fires in the club's properties? Will he consult Mr. Driscoll and myself about what can be done to help this club to carry on its work?

Mr. Mallalieu: My right hon. Friend can be assured that everything I can do to assist such international work as he says has been carried out by this club will be done, and that I will most certainly consult him.

Mr. Winnick: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that, in consultation with the Church Commissioners, I have arranged for a six months' extension to the end of the year? Is he aware that while there is much gratitude on the part of the students that they are not to be thrown out, there is still a very strong feeling that the Church Commissioners, with all their money, could try to build a new hostel for the students? Would he use his considerable persuasion on the Church Commissioners to try to get this new hostel built in the near future?

Mr. Mallalieu: The Church Commissioners will, of course, consider any proposal which is put to them, but their main object is to provide funds for the payment of stipends for the clergy of the Church of England.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Even the Church Commissioners must be brief.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF AVIATION

European Launcher Development Organisation

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Minister of Aviation if he will make a statement on the outcome of the further meeting on 9th June in Paris regarding the future of the European Launcher Development Organisation.

The Minister of Aviation (Mr. Frederick Mulley): I will, with permission, make a statement at the end of Questions.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

Anglo-American Offset Purchase Agreement (Harbour Tugs)

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for Defence, in the light of Government policy set out in the Defence White Paper with regard to the agreement offsetting the foreign exchange cost of British purchases of United States aircraft, what representations he has made to the Government of the United States of America regarding the rejection of a British tender to build harbour tugs for the United States Navy.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Denis Healey): None, Sir. There are no grounds for such representations.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Why not? How does the Secretary of State for Defence think that he will get fulfilment of the undertakings in the White Paper about recovery of the cost of the F111A aircraft and other American purchases if these tenders cannot go through?

Mr. Healey: We have no intention of asking the American Government to subsidise British exports. Under the offset agreement, we are allowed to compete without discrimination against American firms. This was a small order which altogether would have totalled less than £1 million, and factors such as transport costs and lower productivity in British yards prevented us from beating American prices.

Mr. Powell: Does not the right hon. Gentleman now realise how misleading it was for the Government to talk about ensuring that the costs of the F111A would be offset? Is it not a fact that further invitations to tender have now been withdrawn?

Mr. Healey: There was nothing whatever misleading. As I told the House the other day, we have already been invited to provide assault tracking to twice the value of the tugs mentioned in the Question. Invitations to bid for two other kinds of ships are now coming in. One invitation to bid for ships was withdrawn because the American specification was about to be changed, but that bid will he renewed in a few weeks' time.

South Vietnamese Troops (Malaysia Training Courses)

Mr. Russell Kerr: asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many British Service men are currently engaged in the training in Malaysia of South Vietnamese troops; what plans he has to increase this and other assistance by Britain to the United States war effort in Vietnam; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Healey: South Vietnamese soldiers have, since 1961, been attending courses at training centres designed primarily for our own and Commonwealth use. The total number of British Service men operating these centres is 55, of whom only three are concerned exclusively with courses for the South Vietnamese. We have no plans to increase this or to give other assistance to Vietnamese forces or to American forces in Vietnam.

Mr. Kerr: Can my right hon. Friend inform the House how he reconciles his Answer with the Government's professed policy of non-intervention in the disastrous war in Vietnam?

Mr. Healey: Yes, Sir. We have made it clear that we have no intention of participating ourselves in the fighting in Vietnam or supplying weapons to Vietnam. This remains our policy, but the training of Vietnamese service men started as far back as 1961 under the previous Government and we see no reason why we should not assist in the training of a free country to defend its freedom.

Mr. Thorpe: Irrespective of the year in which this facility was first offered, is it not a very odd way for a co-Chairman to exercise his neutrality?

Mr. Healey: I do not know how odd it is, but I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the Soviet co-Chairman of the Geneva Conference is supplying arms on a large scale for the fighting in Vietnam.

Mr. Michael Foot: In view of the appalling events which are now taking place in South Vietnam in particular, as revealed by the actions of the Buddhists in protest, will my right hon. Friend reconsider and withdraw his statement that the Government of South Vietnam is a free Government? Will he also give


immediate orders for stopping even this meagre support for South Vietnam which is now being provided by this method, in view of the barbarous methods of war now being employed by our American allies in Vietnam?

Mr. Healey: I would have thought that if my hon. Friend regarded some of the methods used in Vietnam as barbarous he would welcome our participation in training the soldiers of South Vietnam to fight in the way which has enabled us to bring confrontation to an end at a minimum loss of blood and treasure.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Glasgow Children (Part-time Education)

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many Scottish children are receiving part-time education; and what percentage of these is in Glasgow.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): 2,126 at the end of May—all in Glasgow.

Mr. Taylor: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that this reveals a very alarming situation which could well get worse as a result of his right hon. Friend's disgraceful handling of the salary claim of the Scottish teachers? What specific steps will he take to ensure that Glasgow bears only its fair share of the teacher shortage instead of the present situation in which, with only one-fifth of the population of Scotland, we have all of the children who are receiving part-time education?

Dr. Mabon: The hon. Gentleman must know that the situation at the end of May was much better than it was under the Conservative Government in 1964, and that the number has been more than halved since March, 1965. As for the steps we shall take, the Roberts Report will be received next month and we hope and desire that my right hon. Friend will be able to take appropriate steps then in addition to what he has already done.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Does my hon. Friend realise that he has not answered the first part of the Question? Does he realise that there are children in other cities in Scotland as well as Glasgow and

will he give the percentage figures for those receiving part-time education?

Dr. Mabon: I must remind my hon. and learned Friend that I am informed that there are no children, other than in Glasgow, who are receiving part-time education.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Improvement Grants

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will state how many houses have had baths, hot-water systems and inside water closets installed on standard improvement grants in the last 12 months to a convenient date; if he will give the corresponding figures for the previous 12 months; how many of these were in houses let by private landlords; and what steps he proposes to take to accelerate installations.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Robert Mellish): With permission, I will circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT, but those in respect of houses let by private landlords show no significant change. My right hon. Friend is watching the whole situation closely to see where a fresh impetus is most needed.

Mr. Allaun: Is not the number far fewer than 200,000 a year aimed at by successive Governments, and of those improved have not only one in four or five been landlords' houses as against owner-occupied houses? In view of that, will my hon. Friend consider asking local authorities to go ahead with improvement areas using compulsion where necessary?

Mr. Mellish: The whole subject of improvement grants is under review by my right hon. Friend. Grants to landlords amount to less than one-third of all standard grants. We are not satisfied with this situation, but let us take credit for the fact that nearly one million grants have been given. However, we shall take action to try to improve this figure as much as we can.

Sir E. Errington: May I ask the Minister if he will look very carefully indeed into two things, first of all, the


15-year rule, which is being operated very harshly, and secondly, the unwillingness of tenants to have the improvements made?

Mr. Mellish: These are very fair points. The 15-year rule is one of the things we are now considering to see

STANDARD GRANTS—ENGLAND AND WALES



(*) Local authority dwellings
(†) Private dwellings


Period
No. of dwellings
Baths or showers
Hot water supplies
Water closets
No. of dwellings
Baths or showers
Hot water supplies
Water closets


Twelve months ended 30th April 1965
24,239
1,935
17,017
5,326
50,179
38,762
40,775
44,143


Twelve months ended 30th April 1966
17,869
1,595
15,101
2,988
48,936
36,726
40,113
42,336


(*) Numbers in applications approved.


(†) Numbers where works completed. It is not known how many of the dwellings in which these installations were made were owner-occupied or let. Of all standard grants approved to private houses 25 per cent. were for private landlords during the twelve months ended 30th April, 1965 and 28 per cent. during the twelve months ended 30th April. 1966.

EUROPEAN LAUNCHER DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATION

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. BRUCE-GARDYNE: To ask the Minister of Aviation if he will make a statement on the outcome of the further meeting on 9th June, in Paris, regarding the future of the European Launcher Development Organisation.

Mr. Mulley: With permission, I will now answer Question No. 43.
At the conference of Ministers on 26th-28th April and in the aide memoire delivered to our European partners on 3rd June we expressed the doubts we have had about the merits and economic viability of E.L.D.O. A and E.L.D.O. PAS programmes and our concern at the heavy financial burden—38·8 per cent.—which Her Majesty's Government had to bear since the start of the organisation. In addition, the costs of the programme have risen substantially from the first estimate of £70 million to the current figure of £158 million.
I repeated these doubts at the resumed Ministrial conference on 9th June. Our European partners then put forward proposals for a more equitable distribution of costs between member countries which offer a substantial reduction in our contribution. These revised proposals, which

whether it might be reduced to something like 10. We are also considering the attitude of tenants towards having improvements done, notwithstanding certain justifiable rent increases which follow.
Following are the figures:

we and the other member Governments are now considering, will apply both to the initial programme and to the proposed further programme—E.L.D.O. PAS—for improving the performance of the launchers.

Additionally, working parties have been set up to prepare for the next Ministerial conference in Paris on 7th and 8th July, proposals to ensure a better control of expenditure, arrangements for financial ceilings, distribution of work, and for regular annual reviews of progress and costs.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is the Minister aware that while we welcome the Government's second thoughts on their decision to withdraw from E.L.D.O., a decision which would have had the most disastrous effects on our prospects of entering the Common Market, we could not agree with the way the decision was announced before this further meeting, because it had a disastrous effect on sterling and also on the country's reputation for fidelity to treaties and gave a disastrous impression of vaccination? Why was the decision announced like that?

Mr. Mulley: The reason why the aide mérnoire was sent to our allies was that I was asked at the previous meeting if we would give an indication of the Government's thinking ahead of the resumed Ministerial meeting, so that the member


Government would have an opportunity to consider it before their Ministers actually arrived in Paris.
I do not agree that it had any disastrous effect at all. In fact, these are not my words. The communiqué issued after the conference last week said that it had been conducted in
a cordial, constructive and co-operative atmosphere".
I endorse that.

Mr. R. Carr: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether any proposals were put forward by any of our partners to make a change in the distribution of costs before the meeting of 9th June, or whether we asked for any such proposals prior to our original decision to withdraw? Secondly, could he explain to the House what were the precise reasons for the Government's original decision, and equally, what are the reasons other than the chronic inability to make and keep commitments, for now reversing it—although we welcome that reversal?

Finally—

Mr. Shinwell: Too long.

Mr. Carr: —would the right hon. Gentleman say whether he realises the appalling muddle and anxiety caused among British scientific workers and in British industry and will he take the opportunity to make clear to the country now what exactly are the Government's plans for this project?

Mr. Mulley: What the right hon. Gentleman is now inviting me to do is what I thought he and his right hon. Friends did not want us to do, namely, to make a unilateral declaration on the conduct of an international organisation in which we have partners. The outcome of our meeting, if it is approved by the various Governments, will lead to a very substantial reduction in the British contribution, and, by common consent, a vastly improved technical and economic viability of the Organisation.
I would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have welcomed these things, instead of trying to make political capital out of our attempt to remedy a very bad convention which he and others in the previous Government made.

Mr. Rankin: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the statement he has just made, in view of the fact that instead of having to face an annual charge which was created by the party opposite of nearly £15 million a year my right hon. Friend has now reduced it to, I think. something like £6 million a year?

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary question must be a proper question.

Mr. Rankin: I thought that I had come to it, Sir.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Is it not clear that it is impossible to compete in space with the United States or with the Soviet Union except on a European scale? Will not the Minister, therefore, respond to the request of my right hon. Friend that he should say in principle that the Government mean to stay in E.L.D.O. and to take part in these projects? This is what we want to get from the Minister. Whether or not, as the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary denied earlier, a treaty has been breached, is it not clear that our partners have been very shabbily treated?

Mr. Mulley: The only words of recrimination that I heard to a large extent were directed by some of the member countries on the way they had been induced to join the organisation. The reason why I cannot go further than this is that, naturally, the Governments want to consider the proposed arrangements. As I said, I think that the House would welcome the fact that this working group is to consider whether we can get ways and means of getting annual and total control over the whole of the project. It would, I think, prejudice the successful outcome of these arrangements if I were to go further than we have been able to go so far.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Will the Minister endeavour not to regard any effort we may make in space as competition with the United States and Russia, but as part of a co-operative effort for mankind as a whole?

Mr. Mulley: We confirm this, and, of course, the purpose of the further programme, if we are able to embark on it, is directed exclusively at the telecommunications scheme.

Sir G. Nabarro: Would the Minister now confirm that the figure I asked the Foreign Secretary half an hour ago is indeed the correct one, that British participation, as a result of this rearrangement, is reduced from 38·8 per cent. to 27 per cent.? If the latter figure is incorrect what is the revised participation?

Mr. Mulley: I am sorry, but I cannot give the figure today.—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because the proposals which were put to me were on a confidential basis. Some figures have been disclosed, but not from me. I must respect the request of the Governments concerned that they want to consider these matters, each Government themselves, before a public announcement can be made.

Mr. Lubbock: While I accept that E.L.D.O. A is probably not the best launcher vehicle for the kind of operations we and our European partners want to undertake in space, why did the Minister seek to solve the problem by a complete withdrawal rather than seeking to amend the technical objective of the programme? As part of the measures for improving cost control, about which he spoke, will he seek to secure the appointment of a single project manager for the E.L.D.O. programme?

Mr. Mulley: The appointment of a project manager is something which we feel could well develop. I would welcome the views of the hon. Gentleman on cost control and will see whether they could be fed into the working group's discussion. It is very difficult, when things are said and repeated and people will not accept them, but I can only repeat what my right hon. Friend said, that there was never at any time an intention to withdraw from the E.L.D.O. organisation.

Mr. Shinwell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members on both sides of the House and a vast number of people in the country do not want the Government to spend money which they cannot afford on projects of this kind? Will the Government understand that we do not expect them to commit the folly exhibited by right hon. and hon. Members opposite over Blue Streak and the cancellation of aircraft and other missile projects which involved the country in an expenditure running up to £300 million?

Mr. Mulley: I share my right hon. Friend's concern that we should not en-

gage in acts of folly, but I must remind him that a number of our difficulties stem from treaty obligations which we inherited. Certainly, the whole purpose of our negotiations at present is to reduce the cost to us and make the project more worth while.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Will the right hon. Gentleman not confirm that the original decision to go ahead with the project was taken on the best technological advice available to the then Government? If that be so, would he now say whether anything has happened since to make the project any less desirable technologically?

Mr. Mulley: I am not privy to the advice of the previous Government. If they acted on technological advice, which I think is dubious, one fact which speaks very clearly is that the estimated cost is now more than twice that which we informed our partners was the likely estimate for the completion of E.L.D.O. A.

Mr. Dickens: Is my right hon. Friend fully satisfied that the E.L.D.O. B project will be viable in 1970? Does he not appreciate that in 1961, in a desperate effort to get European participation, the former right hon. Member for Monmouth deliberately raised the British contribution from 25 per cent. to 33 per cent. and, ultimately, to 38 per cent.?

Mr. Mulley: I am aware of the fact that, in that period, the then Minister was going up and up in the amount of money that he would pay, whereas I have tended to go down and down in the amount which we are actually paying.
I must tell my hon. Friend that there is no question of participating in an E.L.D.O. B programme at this stage. No member country has agreed to it. The proposals that we have are for the addition of a perigee/apogee motor system to the existing E.L.D.O. space launcher which will give us the possibility of putting into space a satellite about four times as big as Early Bird, which will be useful for telecommunications purposes.

Mr. Rippon: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that, whatever happens, full use will continue to be made of our unique facilities at


Spadeadam? Will he give some assurances to the people working on the projects about our maintaining a space development programme and about their future? Is he aware of the grave concern which is caused by trying to forge the new Britain in the white heat of the scientific revolution?

Mr. Mulley: I am aware of the concern on both sides of industry. In recent weeks, I have met representatives of the trade unions and the manufacturers concerned. If, as I hope, the programme goes on, continued use will be made of these facilities. But, in the long-term, if we reduce our contribution, the proportion of work in this country may also diminish.

Mr. Burden: Will the right hon. Gentleman not agree that, even at a cost of £14½ million a year, it is desirable that we should remain in this type of space project, because, in the future, will it not have a tremendous impact on the lives of people throughout the whole world? Does the Minister not think that Europe should be in a position to compete with America and Russia in this type of activity?

Mr. Mulley: I do not see that we can approach any of these projects other than on the basis on which we approach similar projects at home, whether the return is likely to make the investment involved worth while. The kind of money involved and the possibilities in E.L.D.O. are likely always to leave us behind the broad achievements of the Soviet Union and the United States in this sphere of activity.

Mr. Marten: As we are likely to be reducing our contribution to E.L.D.O., could the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the money saved might be devoted to a national space programme, which is so very important?

Mr. Mulley: As I have said in answer to questions previously from the hon. Gentleman, the basis of our approach in these matters is to try to do it by way of European collaboration. We had better wait and see how this comes out before we make statements about further national projects.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Is it not a fact that the following six Departments have an interest in the project: the Ministry of Aviation, the Department of Education and Science, the Ministry of Technology, the Post Office, the Foreign Office, and the Ministry of Defence? I have no doubt that the Treasury also has a watching brief. Is it not desirable that one Minister should be in charge of what is a very complicated international project, so that we can get the political direction, inspiration and enthusiasm which is lacking at present?

Mr. Mulley: I can confirm to the hon. Gentleman that the Treasury has an interest in this project. In Europe at the moment there are a number of proposals that we should get a closer co-ordination, because the problem arises not merely in this country, but in others, that space is the responsibility of several Ministers. I hope that that is another matter which may be considered further on 7th July. Certainly, it would be beneficial if the work of E.S.R.O., C.E.T.S. and E.L.D.O. could be brought closer together.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must come back to earth now. Mr. Gunter. Statement.

SEAMEN'S DISPUTE (REPORT OF INQUIRY)

The Minister of Labour (Mr. R. J. Gunter): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
The Report of the Court of Inquiry on the immediate issue in the seamen's dispute was published on 8th June. I am most grateful to Lord Pearson and his colleagues for doing this first stage of their work so quickly and thoroughly.
The Report proposed that a settlement should be reached on the following lines: a 48 hour week to be introduced now and a 40 hour week in a year's time, annual leave to be increased to 39 days, and the employers' offer of an increase of 12s. 6d. a month in efficiency pay to be withdrawn.
The Report also urged the two sides of the industry to co-operate in securing a cut of two hours in overtime over the next year as a first step in a longer term reduction of hours worked at sea. The


Court estimates the cost of a settlement on these lines at a little under 5 per cent. in the first year and 4½ per cent. in the second year.
Following publication of the Report on 8th June, I at once invited representatives of the shipowners and the union to see me later that day. The Executive Committee of the National Union of Seamen rejected the Report in advance of the meeting with officials of the union and in my discussions with the officials they informed me that the Executive would consider nothing short of their full demands. The shipowners said that had the union been prepared to accept the Report they would have done so.
The Government's views were made clear in these discussions and in a statement the following day. We regard the proposals in the report as providing a fair settlement and we believe that acceptance of them by both sides of the industry would be in the interests of the seamen, the shipping industry and of the nation.
On 9th June, the Finance and General Purposes Committee of the T.U.C. discussed the position with the Executive Committee of the union and informed them that the T.U.C. could not recommend an extension of the strike, and regretted very much that the General Council could not at this stage assist.
There have since been further discussions between the T.U.C. and the union and contacts are continuing. I understand that the Finance and General Purposes Committee is meeting at 5 o'clock today.
I am keeping in close touch with all concerned.

Sir K. Joseph: Does the Minister agree that if overtime is not cut the Pearson settlement will cost about 7 per cent. and not 4½ per cent. in the second year? Do the Government intend, therefore, to make the overtime cut a condition of their acceptance of the Report, or to recognise that the Report will, in fact, cost 7 per cent. next year?
Finally, will the Government declare, particularly in the light of the Prime Minister's television broadcast, that further militancy should not, in their view, lead to any compromise over and beyond the Pearson proposals?

Mr. Gunter: On the last point, the Government's position has been made clear. We have said that the Pearson Report should be the basis of a fair settlement. It is a fair settlement, and should be accepted by the men, and that is where the Government stand.
On the question of overtime, I understand the argument that although the figure adduced is 4½ per cent., it could be 7 per cent. unless the negotiations were fruitful. We understand at least that. there is general consent that there should be no difficulty in cutting two hours by consent of both sides if negotiations take place, but I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that this is a Report submitted by a very eminent body. I would see no difficulty in containing the two hours if the men would only go back to work on what is a fair basis.

Mr. Mendelson: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it is established custom and practice that proposals made by a court of inquiry need not be accepted in toto as made, but point in the direction where a settlement might be reached between the two sides concerned? With that in view, would not it be better not to press the N.U.S. to accept every part of that Report, but to get the two sides together with the hope of reaching an agreement in the direction pointed by the Report, but with some better terms, particularly on leave days, for the seamen?

Mr. Gunter: Practices have varied on courts of inquiry over the past years. Sometimes they have been accepted, and sometimes rejected, and sometimes have formed the basis of negotiation. I can only repeat to my hon. Friend that it is the feeling, the belief, of the Government that this is a fair and reasonable offer that has been made by Lord Pearson, and ought to be accepted.

Mr. Grimond: Is the Minister aware that many of the seamen's grievances arise out of the Merchant Shipping Act? These grievances have been known for many years. Can he give an undertaking that a new Merchant Shipping Act will be introduced? Bearing in mind the long period of discussions about these grievances, can he also give an undertaking that major grievances will be rectified in this present Session of Parliament? If that were done, the seamen


might be in a more favourable frame of mind to consider the Pearson proposals as a possible basis for discussion.

Mr. Gunter: What the right hon. Gentleman said has been the basis of my argument with the seamen for four weeks. They were told six weeks ago that they could have a long-range inquiry into the iniquities which they allege operate in the Act. They have welcomed the inquiry on that basis. They wanted the inquiry to go into all the aspects of their conditions of service and the law as it operated in that sphere. There is no doubt in their minds—I can assure the right hon. Gentleman of this—that the second stage of this inquiry will proceed as rapidly as possible. It would be helpful if the seamen would go back to sea so that the court can get on with the job before it. There is no doubt in their minds that the Merchant Shipping Act must be amended. It must be altered. We must have a complete look at the law as it operates.

Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us on this side of the House feel that it is regrettable that the seamen did not accept this Report as a basis for negotiations? But, having said that, does not this make the position rather ridiculous as far as the employers are concerned, who declared openly that they could not move any further, yet immediately after the Report was published said that they could accept it? Does not this mean that a great responsibility for the continuance of the strike rests with the employers' attitude as well as with the N.U.S.?

Mr. Gunter: My hon. Friend knows that I pleaded for a long time that they should take the 3 per cent. on the basic rates and then proceed to an immediate review of the whole wage structure. I still think that that was the best advice that I could possibly have tendered. The owners were prepared to have that, although they were reluctant about the inquiry. They have now, not with any great enthusiasm, said that they will accept the Report in the interests of the nation as a whole. There are certain elements in the Report which go far beyond what the owners wanted to offer.

Mr. Ridsdale: Is the Minister aware, especially with regard to Harwich, that it is fear of intimidation and being black-legged which is preventing the seamen from going back to work? What has he in mind to prevent this intimidation and blacklegging? Why not introduce a secret ballot now? Never have so many been held to ransom for so long by so few.

Mr. Gunter: I have heard rumours this morning of intimidation, but I have had no official reports.

Mr. Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that all those who want to see an end to this stike as soon as possible resent the awards given to certain elements in the community, such as doctors and judges, which have been well above the norm, and which make it more difficult for some of us in the Labour movement to persuade the seamen to go back to work on the offers which have been made so far?

Mr. Gunter: I appreciate the point made by my hon. Friend, but I would remind him that doctors had their awards split anyhow, and that is all I am asking the seamen to do.

Mr. Stratton Mills: While welcoming the fair and firm stand taken by the Minister in these negotiations, may I ask whether he feels that he has been assisted by the moral support given to the strikers by the 10s. a nob collection by many of his hon. Friends at an early stage in these negotiations?

Mr. Gunter: I get into enough trouble looking after my own conduct, without worrying too much about other people's.

Mr. Dan Jones: I invite the Minister to agree with me that—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is beautifully put, but it is out of order.

Mr. Dan Jones: I accept your correction, Mr. Speaker. I will put it in another way. Will the Minister agree with me that, as this is a very delicate situation, and as this is now in the hands of very responsible and knowledgeable people, the least said in this House this afternoon the better?

Sir C. Osborne: While wishing the Minister good luck from both sides of the


House in a very difficult task, may I ask whether he will give an assurance that the report in certain newspapers that the Government are considering giving a subsidy to fill this gap is untrue and will not be substantiated?

Mr. Gunter: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the statements in the Press are quite untrue. It has never been discussed, and it has never been put to me by any party.

Mr. Ashley: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the attacks on the union from right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have not ameliorated, but have exacerbated, a very delicate situation? Is he further aware that, unless the seamen Accept the reasonable offer made by the inquiry, they will incur the hostility of their friends as well as of their enemies?

Sir Knox Cunningham: Will the Minister consult his Cabinet colleagues and arrange for certain restrictions on flying to be suspended during the present emergency, on freight traffic between Ulster and Great Britain, because this is proving a lifeline and is helping to prevent grave unemployment in Ulster?

Mr. Gunter: I will take note of that.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protect the business of the House.

MINISTRY OF SOCIAL SECURITY [MONEY]

Resolution reported,

That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the appointment of a Minister of Social Security and to replace Part II of the National Assistance Act 1948 by provisions giving rights to non-contributory benefit, it is expedient to authorise:

A. The payment out of moneys prfovided by Parliament of—

(a) any benefit payable under that Act;
(b) the remuneration of the Minister and of any Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Social Security and of members of any Commission appointed under that Act;
(c) the expenses of the Minister, except such as are by virtue of any enactment to be defrayed in some other manner;
(d) such expenses of any Commission appointed under that Act as are incurred with the approval of the Minister, including expenses so incurred in defraying travelling expenses;
(e) expenses and travelling and other allowances (including compensation for loss of remunerative time) of members of local advisory committees appointed under that Act and of persons attending at the request of such a committee;
(f) any increase attributable to that Act in the expenses so payable under any other enactment.
B. The payment of any sums into the Exchequer.

Resolution agreed to.

MINISTRY OF SOCIAL SECURITY BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir ERIC FLETCHER in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(THE MINISTER OF SOCIAL SECURITY.)

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

4.2 p.m.

The Chairman: Although the new Clause standing in the name of the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley), entitled "Social Research Unit"—
There shall be established within the Ministry a Unit, to be known as the Social Research Unit, charged with the following duties—

(a) to collate such information relevant to the work of the Ministry as is now available;


(b) to initiate further research into such matters.—
is not selected, it will be in order to discuss that new Clause on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Marcus Worsley: The purpose of the new Clause which I have put down, and which you, Sir Eric, have been kind enough to say can be discussed on this Question, is to carry out a policy which my hon. Friends and I put in the election manifesto of the Conservative Party. It is to include within the Ministry a social research unit. I offer this piece of policy to the right hon. Lady to strengthen this rather timid little Bill. She need have no fear about adopting Tory measures: all her right hon. and hon. Friends are doing that at the moment.
The right hon. Lady will be aware, of course, that it was the intention of my party to set up a wider health and social security Measure, that we wished to include, in particular, health in a wider Ministry, one which would cover the whole range of social policy and which would, therefore, produce a really concerted social policy. The right hon. Lady said something about this matter in her speech on Second Reading. She will forgive me if I say that she did not answer the criticisms which we have made about the much more limited proposals which she has put forward.
Were these provisions which I am suggesting to be part of a wider proposal for a wider Ministry, it would make better sense, but no doubt we shall find other occasions. If I pursue this subject further I will be ruled out of order, hut it makes good sense, even within the limited provisions of the Bill.
Our case is simply this. Social policy must be considered as a whole, and that cannot be done unless the Government are constantly provided with up-to-date information about society. We live in a society which changes very fast. Over most of the field, full employment and rising earnings have brought relative affluence, but certain groups get left out—this is what the Bill is about—through physical or mental inadequacy or for financial reasons, and especially through the workings of inflation.
It is not a matter of class, as perhaps it once was. Some hon. Gentlemen oppo-

site seemed to misunderstand this on Second Reading. There are areas of need in all parts of our society. In the old days, when we were talking about much wider areas of need, there was perhaps nothing which could be done beyond the flat-rate, blanket provisions based on the Beveridge Report. But today we need more delicate machinery to locate those areas of need and to prevent new areas of need developing. At present, the machinery is woefully inadequate.
One simple example of this relates to what has become known as family poverty, the question of how many families with children in households where an income is below National Assistance Board standards. Obviously, this is a key question, as is that of what has been happening in this respect in the last year. On 22nd February last year, in answer to a Written Question, the Minister of Labour said that he thought that there were between 50,000 and 150,000 such families. He thought that the average number of children was probably something over three.
Luckily for him, the right hon. Gentleman admitted that the only figures he had were subject to wide margins of error. Luckily, because only five months later, on 26th July, his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary gave the figures as being between 150,000 and 200,000 families. Then, on Second Reading, the week before the Recess, the right hon. Lady the Minister said that between 200,000 and 300,000 families were involved.
The right hon. Lady also said that she intended to set up, during the summer, a sample survey into such families. This is not good enough. It is too amateurish for words that we should take so long to find out the basic simple facts about a real area of need in our society. What we believe is needed in the Ministry is a unit which is constantly seeking out need. which would have been looking out for this particular problem, collecting the information well in advance—not waiting for Questions in the House necessarily—knowing the facts and not making an error of the size of that contained in the Answer on 22nd February. Nor should such a unit wait for Ministerial initiatives. It should be constantly in operation, constantly searching, constantly looking out for new areas of need.
As I said, the speed of change in our society makes this more and more urgent. We visualise that such a unit would serve other Ministries than that of the right hon. Lady, that it would receive and collate information from other Ministries than hers. After all, we are no longer in the situation that we were in when Sir William Beveridge, as he was then, wrote his Report on the social services. We have a mass of information now about social matters which was not then available.
Like other hon. Members, no doubt, with a view to discussions on the Bill, I have been rereading the original Beveridge Report. What stands out over and over again in that Report is the limited nature of the evidence on which it was based. Things are quite different today. Today, a mass of research is going on. We contend that the Government are not at present getting the full advantage of this research, that if they were there could not have been in this instance which I have given the ignorance about the extent of the problem and there would not have been such a long delay before something was done to find out more about it. We contend, therefore, that there should be built into the Ministry a social research unit.
I am, of course, aware that there is a certain amount of social research work being done within the whole Government orbit. I understand, for example, that the Central Office of Information does work of this kind. I hope that the Minister will indicate the amount of work that is going on and whether recent rumours that there are to be cuts in the amount of social research work being done are correct.
My hon. Friends and I feel that the unit which I have been describing should be within the right hon. Lady's Ministry, although it would presumably work closely with the Registrar General's Department. I am aware that this is a Ministerial responsibility of her right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, and this brings me back to my original point of the need for a unified Ministry. It is essential that central to the right hon. Lady's Ministerial activities should be a constant source of information.
As I pointed out, we realise that a mass of information is constantly being produced and that universities and others

are doing much work in this sphere. However, there will be occasions when such a unit, looking at the information that is published and is available, will discover other areas where work is not being carried out.
It is, therefore, part of the idea I am adducing that the unit should itself be able to undertake or commission research where it is thought necessary; that it should look over the whole sphere and make absolutely sure, as a statutory duty, that the facts are known—and that is why I would like it to be a statutory provision of the Bill—so that the right hon. Lady may provide herself and her colleagues with up-to-date information about social policy. As I explained, this is very much second best to a unified Ministry, but as a first stage it would be a useful start towards getting a really contemporary and active social policy.

Mr. Bernard Braine: My hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Miss Pike) made it clear on Second Reading that we welcome the Bill in general for what it seeks to do. However, she made it plain that a major criticism of the Bill is that it is being brought forward before the completion of the Government's comprehensive review of the social services. That review has already taken 18 months and, for all we know, it may be another 18 months before it is completed. Since it is obviously desirable to bring assistance to those who are manifestly in need, the Bill serves a useful, though limited, purpose.
So far, this review has been the Government's excuse for doing nothing about a number of things; the earnings rule for pensioners, bringing help to non-pensioners, widows, and so on—and the Bill could be improved in a number of ways. One such way—and in this sense it could be improved without cutting across the review which is being undertaken; indeed, it might help it—would be for the Minister to accept the new Clause which was spoken to so compellingly and persuasively by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley).

4.15 p.m.

My hon. Friend pointed out that the new Clause embodies proposals made in the Conservative General Election manifesto, in which we said that we would attach a


central research unit to a much enlarged Ministry which would also embrace the Ministry of Health. The thinking behind this is simply that what is needed today in the social services is what Mr. Timothy Raison described in a recent valuable article in New Society as "a strategy of social provision". In other words, today we need to fit our administrative arrangements to meet contemporary and likely future needs rather than to undertake an administrative reform before developing any clear idea of what these administrative arrangements are designed to do.

There is little evidence in the Bill that the needs which exist have been recognised, let alone assessed. For example, while the Bill provides a special scale of allowances for the blind, which merely continues the present practice, something which we all warmly welcome, it misses the opportunity of helping other categories of the severely disabled. We will be talking about this at later stages of the Bill. Why has this opportunity been missed? Most of us suspect—and there are some of us who know—that the physically disabled comprise one of the most deprived groups in the community.

Writing recently in New Society, Lady Hamilton drew attention, in an article of considerable importance—because it threw new light on a problem which has been known to exist for a long time—to the fact that people do not know very much about the disabled; how many of them there are, the kinds of problems they face, and so on. I will not go over the ground at this stage, but I and others will seek, when discussing later Amendments, to amplify this matter.

Suffice to say that I suspect that the difference between the two sides of the Committee is nothing like as great as the doctrinaires like to believe. Both sides are edging towards a more just and humane provision, both are conscious of the need to reform and improve and both are doing this substantially in the dark.

The truth is that we do not know nearly enough about society and its needs. It is not that there is a dearth of studies and inquiries so much as the need to interpret and co-ordinate the facts which these studies and inquiries are revealing. For example, there have been many valuable surveys in the last 20 years into the problems associated

with the care of old people. Thirty-three of them are listed in the appendix to Townsend and Wedderburn's valuable survey of the aged in the Welfare State, which I take it all hon. Members have read.

The task of interpreting the surveys—of finding out the gaps which exist in our knowledge and of informing ourselves of what is really needed in public policy—is a task essentially for Government and not for academics or private organisations. The Government must decide on, for example, the shape and scope of the hospital plan, the community services, staffing requirements and the finance that is needed.

This is work for the Government, because studies conducted by university organisations and individuals tend to concentrate on fragments of the problem. If we are to estimate, for example, the need for geriatric beds, we need a nation-wide study and not a local study conducted by a particular hospital group. We need a nation-wide study into the condition and treatment of people in different types of hospitals, nursing homes and old people's residential homes and we need to compare that with cases of similarly old and frail people living in their own homes.

How many elderly patients in psychiatric hospitals should really be in geriatric hospitals or residential homes? How many people in local authority welfare homes should really be living in specialised housing provided by local authorities with all the necessary services? How many specialised houses shall we need? How many old people are really incapable of looking after themselves and what services do they need to make life tolerable?

I will not argue this any further, because these are matters which will be referred to in the course of discussion on the Bill over and over again, but there are two requirements. The first is that there should be a wide range of inquiry into every—

The Chairman: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member, but he was going rather wide. I hope that he will not pursue those matters that he has just been saying will be referred to over and over again, because the Bill is limited to setting up a Ministry of Social


Security. It would not be in order to discuss matters in relation to the National Health Service and geriatric schemes in the way that the hon. Member was doing.

Mr. Braine: I accept that entirely, Sir Eric.
What I was about to say was that there are obviously two requirements against the background which I have described. The first is that there should be a wide range of inquiry into every aspect of community life—this is what social security is about—so that we can be sure that the social services of the 1970s, which the new Ministry is designed to administer, really meet the needs of a fast-changing society. There is a great deal of room for the kind of patient and devoted private and university research that has been going on quietly for some time, and which the Government encourage.
Secondly, we must make sure that research is not limited to trying to fit the fact to the theory, which is very often the case with some inquiries, but rather the other way round, so that it is applied objectively in social policy at an earlier stage than at present, and as a means of suggesting policy initiatives to the Minister, with the Minister taking hold of the situation, as it were.
There is an unanswerable case for the kind of organisation suggested in the new Clause in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea. We are building new towns, and new housing estates are going up. Hospitals and clinics are being built which involve intricate and detailed physical planning, often without any element of real sociological study. As a result, we never seem to know in advance—we find out afterwards—what is really needed to produce a truly purposeful and dignified community life.
Therefore, this proposal ought to recommend itself to the Minister and be accepted by her. It would provide her with an instrument to strengthen her hand in every way to ensure—although I know that this is difficult—that she is better informed. It would give great encouragement to all those who are engaged at present in social research and pave the way for social policies designed to meet real needs and thereby build a kinder, more purposeful and more worth-while society.

Mr, W. R. van Straubenzee: We have much work to do and I know that both sides of the Committee want to make good progress. Therefore, I shall put my points very shortly. We are very obliged to you, Sir Eric, for allowing us to discuss the new Clause in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley) on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
I realise the technical difficulty we are in. There is no form of words that we are seeking to persuade the Minister to accept, because we are technically only talking about the Clause standing part. Nevertheless, I hope very much that when the right hon. Lady the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance replies she will be able to indicate some of her thinking about research in her Department, because without question the proposal for a social research unit is a very helpful one, though it must be said that in the context of this limited Bill its use is very severely restricted and it would have been very much more valuable in the kind of Bill which would have been introduced were the party on this side of the Committee in office.
I want to give three short examples of the sort of problem with which I would hope this research unit would deal. The right hon. Lady is in quite good company. We recognised some years ago that we were badly lacking in research knowledge of future educational requirements, and this was put right some years ago in the Department of Education and Science. There are very good precedents for this in Government Departments. We are surely agreed on both sides of the Committee that the problems with which the Bill inadequately attempts to deal, in part, arise from some of those limited areas of hardship with which we ought to be dealing, and into which we shall go much more fully at later stages in our discussions.
We on this side of the Committee are afraid that the Government machinery is not sufficiently delicate to locate and identify these areas of hardship. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea has, for example, referred to the problem of the disabled. We are fast moving into a world where the skill of the doctor is keeping large numbers of these people not only alive, but usefully alive. I do not


want to elaborate this, or to breach the rules of order, in any way, but there are many examples of ways in which people who were never able to do so before are enabled to lead useful lives. Yet such people are very often in real difficulty and poverty. I am not at all satisfied that we have the facilities for identifying them and bringing their plight to the attention of those who can do something about it, and ultimately to this House.
There should be better co-ordination by the right hon. Lady's Ministry of the many excellent research projects which are being carried out by those who are interested in and concerned with the disabled. A fascinating study was recently made of the problem of the fatherless family. I was not entirely convinced, although I recognise the excellence of the work, of the particular claim for the fatherless as such. But this is precisely the sort of field—the problem really of the large family—which ought to be under continuing review, rather than the limited survey the right hon. Lady announced in the Second Reading debate.
This is one of the growing problems of our time because, as we all know, the number of large families is growing. It is one of the consequences of growing affluence. The number of families with six children, for example, is sharply increasing proportionately over the years, and bringing with it social difficulties and sometimes hardship.
Finally, I come to my third example—the problem of addiction to drugs and drink, which is a growing social problem. It often brings social and economic difficulties in its train, particularly to the families of those concerned. Very worthy persons are busily at work on this in certain limited ways, but one finds that there is a wide range of unco-ordinated effort, although I do not wish to be critical of those who are involved, for we depend a great deal on voluntary effort in these and other fields.
Because the modern affluent society has left behind pockets of people of this kind it seems to us on this side of the Committee that we need new machinery for dealing with it, I hope in the constructive way in which this has been put forward. I hope that the right hon. Lady, while not accepting any form of

words, for none has been put, will nevertheless feel able to accept the spirit of the new Clause had it been put. I am very grateful to you, Sir Eric, for allowing it to be discussed.

4.30 p.m.

Miss J. M. Quennell: I want to pursue the eloquent pleas made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) and my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley). I urge the right hon. Lady at any rate to consider the full thinking that lies behind the new Clause. It is a very innocuous request, and it could not do the Government very much harm if they decided to be generous and couragous and accept it.
Looking through the report of the debate on the Second Reading I was struck by the variety, diversity and number of people who are living below the accepted definition of the poverty line, that is, the National Assistance Board scales. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea mentioned the variation between the various Ministry figures quoted from time to time in HANSARD. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) quoted a Ministry of Labour study which suggested that there were about 7½ million such people—a substantially greater number than that quoted by the Minister of Labour at Question Time in the House. This illustrates the enormous discrepancies between the various figures that are used, and on which we try to work.
I want to tell the right hon. Lady about some of my own efforts to discover something of the numbers involved in the narrow group of incapacitated people to which I referred in my Second Reading speech, namely, the incapacitated housewives. It was purely by acciment that I discovered that they were not eligible for National Assistance. An incapacitated housewife at home is not eligible for any of the social benefits now provided by the State.
I tried to discover how many housewives were living at home in these conditions. After about six months, during which time I had the willing help of the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Labour and the right hon. Lady's own Department, I retired defeated. I asked


Questions in the House, and communicated with the various Departments in writing, privately. At the end, however, I was faced with the fact that although these people exist there is no clear picture of the numbers involved within the central administration.
I want to quote the last paragraph of a letter I received from the Ministry of Health, because although it seemed to me that incapacitated people would come into contact with the medical services and that there was, therefore, a glimmer of a beginning of the construction of some index which would give some idea of the numbers involved, this was not the case. The letter says:
Hospital figures are not available for the categories of people you describe. We could let you know the numbers of patients in geriatric and chronic sick wards, but these of course include many people who are not long-stay patients. We also have some figures for those 'chronic sick' patients who are in the age group 16-60.
So some figures are available in connection with these people, but not many. Yet the people of this country suffer very much from having to deal with the questionaires and the attentions of the Registrar-General, and all over the country there are files galore relating to everything under the sun, from the number of water cisterns in houses and the number of elderly people to the numbers in various age groups and birth groups. Centrally, however, these figures are not available.
Every hon. Member who tries to pursue this matter and obtain information centrally about some narrow aspect, whether it concerns the youth employment service or people who are in need of help from the State, comes up against this block. Centrally, there is an almost complete lack of statistics upon which we can work.
This means that we are driven back on to the private foundations in order to try to discover where need lies. I am sure that all hon. Members agree that some excellent work is sponsored by private foundations all over the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) referred to the work done in universities. We must also remember the work which is undertaken by those who are preparing their theses for doctorates. Very often, after the success of the candidate, these theses end up in the university library, and very

seldom see the light of day again. A great deal of enormously valuable information is wasted in this way.
We are standing on the threshold of an age in which our society is becoming much more mobile and much more rapidly changing in its pattern. What we need is an instrument available to the State which can identify and locate these changing patterns in our society, especially developing patterns of poverty, before they become established and formidable and present an almost national problem.
This modest new Clause would provide the right hon. Lady with just this weapon, and I therefore beg her to accept it. It cannot do her any harm, and it might do her some good. It would certainly do a great deal of good to many of our people.

Dame Irene Ward: If we had been able to establish this research unit inside the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance it would have been of the greatest help to the right hon. Lady. I do not want to go into the matter in detail, but I am sure that we have all had experience of communicating with a Department on the many problems arising in respect of people who are covered by our social security schemes and receiving an answer from that Department that the matter is the responsibility of another Department.
The right hon. Lady's Department is very good in sending on our letters to the right Departments and seeing that the various problems are examined by them, and we eventually receive answers from those Departments. But if there were a unit which the right hon. Lady herself could use when information came forward from the people handling the various cases it might be possible to make the excellent work which her Department does much more effective.
Reference has been made to the disabled. Under the National Insurance Scheme some are adequately provided for and others are not. Very often we find that although a lot of money and thought goes into the question of the future of these people, the variations in the regulations which operate at local authority level mean that the lives of some of these disabled people are improved while others are made much worse.
Some local authorities take people in strict rotation from their housing waiting


lists, on the basis of an examination and of the operation of their own ideas of how certain houses should be allocated. There is, however, great variation in the way in which this problem is dealt with. Some local authorities pay no attention to the need to find ground-floor accommodation for disabled people, or make them wait for a very long time, sometimes in overcrowded conditions, before dealing with them. The help that we give to these people under our national security schemes is not followed up in a way that makes the life of these individuals as fruitful, happy, and free from pain as possible. The Minister must know from her own experience how great is the variation in local government administration.
We believe that it would be of profound advantage if a research unit were available for use at the Minister's discretion. The Minister will know that in some areas a certain type of disability arises from the employment which is most prevalent in the area and that this disability will be quite different from physical disabilities prevailing in other areas. If such a research unit were available, the Minister's position would be made very much stronger and much more realistic.
There are wide variations between the amount of Part III accommodation available in local authority areas. In some areas there is much more accommodation available for those for whom the Minister is responsible under the National Insurance Scheme, because of the democratic processes of the freely elected representatives of the local authority concerned. In other areas the emphasis is in quite another direction. The attitude of a local authority towards the problems of life often depend on the individual crusading spirits within the authority itself. Some authorities have gone very far ahead. The experience and information that the progressive authorities have acquired would be of invaluable use if the Minister could direct a research unit to gather all of it together and set it at work in other local authority areas which perhaps have not had the specialised crusading spirit. This suggestion opens up such a wide vista that one could go on talking about it for hours.
I want now to refer to a problem which caused great distress at one time. It was never satisfactorily settled within the Ministry. I came to be concerned with the case of a young apprentice working on the Tyne—not in my constituency, though he wrote to me. He was working in one of the big shipyards. He had the usual love affair with a very young girl. The apprentice was 17. The girl was 16. They had their first baby before they got married; but they got married. The young apprentice took a very responsible attitude towards the part he had to play in the life of this girl and his child.
It is not often that I leave any stones unturned. I went through the whole range, but, because of the regulations which existed within the National Assisstance Board, although everybody said that that young family was living below the subsistence level, nothing could be done.
This was a very distressing thing to have to say in this great country. The W.V.S. kindly supplied clothes. All sorts of people came forward with their good will in organisation but the fact remained that, although this young apprentice did the right thing and married the girl, because there was no provision under the National Assistance Board procedure for, shall I say, subsidising wages, that family had to live below the subsistence level.
This was one isolated case that came to my notice. I wonder how many such cases there are spread throughout the country. When it was discovered that the boy had married the girl and that they were trying to set up home together, we managed to get them housing through the local authority. I doubt whether the country would agree that it was a good idea that this family, the boy having done the right thing, could not be helped because of some regulation which is no doubt a very good regulation when taken in the overall context of industrial life, but not in the context of the life of an apprentice.
This is the sort of anomaly which a research unit would help to bring to the Minister's attention. I know how deeply and keenly she feels about these matters. We feel that a research unit of this type would strengthen her position. Such a


unit would give tremendous impetus and confidence to many organisations which are overwhelmed by the problems which still exist in life and which are always delighted to know that Parliament realises what needs to be done and is making an effort to help them to carry on with their very excellent work.
The Minister may well say that this is a good idea and that she will think about it between now and Report. I hope that she will put it into effect. This suggestion is put forward as a genuine basis for strengthening the power of Parliament and of the Minister to look after the great number of people who need our attention.

4.45 p.m.

Miss Mervyn Pike: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) that in her heart the Minister must welcome this proposal. Our arguments are ones that the Minister may use to strengthen any efforts she may make to build up such a research unit in the future. I accept that it would be difficult at this stage of the Bill. I know that the Minister, like us, wishes to ensure not only that we collate all the information which is available at present, but also that we are in a position to forecast future patterns and initiate new researches into what we can do. We all recognise that at present the pace of change is very rapid. We all recognise that society is particularly sophisticated and integrated. It is no good us being behind public opinion in our formulation of social service. We must have the weapons necessary for us to lead public opinion into new patterns.
I hope that the Ministry will think again on the lines of building up a research unit to collate all the information. It would be very valuable if more regional information could be collated. I know that the Yorkshire Council of Social Workers is at present engaged in regional surveys of different problems. This is very good work, but we have nothing with which to compare the results. If the Ministry would initiate such surveys, we could compare the different problems arising in the regions.
To go a step ahead, it would be valuable in international talks to have the results of such surveys, because the cross-fertilisation of ideas is particularly help-

ful. When I am trying to compare like with like in other Western countries, I find it difficult to know what this country is doing and where I can find the information. One of the most valuable exports that the country could make is that of new ideas and new techniques of social security, social justice and compassion. We have led the world in the past, and we want to go on doing so in the future.
I hope that people will not ride off on the fact that this has not been done so far. I am sorry that it has not been done before. I took a degree in sociology and, although I am not all that old, it was regarded as something very odd. I was one of very few who took such a degree. There were three of us at the university at that time studying the subject, and everybody thought that we were studying fortune telling. In fact, I suppose we were. We were studying the fortunes of this country. Now the disciplines of social anthropology and sociology are building up in our newer universities, and some very exiciting studies are being undertaken in this field. This is surely the time to build up this research unit.
I stress to the right hon. Lady that we are putting forward this idea to help her in the work that I know she wants to do. I hope that she will do her best to make certain that in the future we can have this sort of unit ranging as widely as possible, collating as much information as possible and helping us to cross-fertilise ideas not only in this country, but in the Western countries as a whole.

The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Miss Margaret Herbison): We have had a very wide-ranging debate on Clause 1. We have, indeed, touched on Amendments and new Clauses which I hope we shall be discussing later. I do not think that there is much between the attitudes of the Government and of the Opposition on this question of research and the collation of information. What I want to be sure of is that the job is done in the best way possible to help people who need help.
The hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley) was rather critical of the Government. He spoke of a long delay and referred to this question of the low-wage earner. I must tell him that we on this


side of the Committee have known about the low-wage earner in this country not only during the last two years, but for many years. As a back bencher and as an Opposition Front Bench Member I continually spoke on this subject, and since becoming the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, I have been trying to find the best ways and means of dealing with this very serious problem of the low-wage earner, to which we shall come later when considering other Amendments. I do not think that it helped the hon. Member's case when he referred to the long delay by the present Government in dealing with the matter, when we have not been in power for two years, whereas his Government were in power for 13 years.
The Government do not question in any way the importance of collating all the information which bears on social security, to which the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) referred. A number of hon. Members have made excellent speeches, the only one of which I am critical being the speech of the hon. Member for Chelsea. Some hon. Members have referred to the invaluable work that is being done in our universities and by other bodies, such as local authorities, on the problems of the old. All of that work is of the greatest importance. Any Government, and particularly the new Ministry of Social Security, ought to be aware of what is happening and should do as much as possible in collating all the information that is available not only from Government sources but from other sources as well. That, indeed, is the intention of the present Government.
The very fact that we have before us this Bill, which brings together the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance and the National Assistance Board, is evidence that we are concerned with the subject and will facilitate this bringing together of the information which both sides of the Committee consider to be so important.

Mr. Braine: Would the right hon. Lady go one step further? I hope she intended to go on to say that the Ministry will not merely collate and interpret what is being done by private investigation, but will initiate research as well.

This is, of course, the major point in the proposal which is before the Committee.

Miss Herbison: I should imagine, having examined the proposed new Clause and having listened to the debate, that there are two angles—the collation, and the research. I am dealing first with the question of collation, and then I intend to deal with research. They are both of great importance.
All the information that is collected and collated will be available for consideration in connection with problems arising in the field of contributory and non-contributory benefits, for which the Ministry will be responsible. Almost all of the suggestions which have been made, with the exception of the example given by the hon. Member for Tynemouth, who spent at least part of her speech dealing with housing, are of the greatest interest and, as I have said, many of the points that have been made are covered by Amendments which I understand will be raised later, concerning the provision of contributory or non-contributory benefits. Having the two Departments under one Ministry will be of great help to us in the collection and collation of information which becomes available.
If I may refer to the point raised by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine), the need to undertake research into social problems is fully accepted by the Government. We were convinced long before we came into power how scrappy was the research into so many of the social problems, and we are determined that much more research shall be done. I had thought that during my Second Reading speech I made it very clear that we as a Government felt that much more needed to be done in this respect. Indeed, I referred to our present programme of research into social problems.
I do not know whether hon. Members are aware that the report of the inquiry into the financial and other circumstances of retirement pensioners, which took place last year, has just been published. That survey was decided upon by the previous Government. We had been asking for it for a long time. My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. James Griffiths), who was dissatisfied with the situation, raised the matter on the Adjournment, as a result of which the then Minister, my predecessor, announced


that this survey would be undertaken. When hon. Members examine the findings of that survey I think that they will be more and more impressed by the value of research, because it is a piece of social research which will be very helpful to us in the kind of work which we want to do.
On Second Reading, I also referred to he field work in connection with the inquiry into the circumstances of families with two or more children, which will begin this month. This fieldwork will begin on 20th June. Again, this touches on some of what I consider are important Amendments and new Clauses which the Opposition and one of my hon. Friends have on the Notice Paper. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelsea was a bit scathing about the smallness of this survey. We want to get it done quickly. It is amazing what information can be obtained from personal visiting of over 2,000 homes. One hon. Member talked about regional research. The homes which will be visited will cover the length and breadth of the country.
In my Second Reading speech I stressed—and this seems to have been forgotten by the Opposition—that the Commission has a very important part to play in research. I said that I had thought when I began to examine these problems that I would not want anyone in place of the Board. I changed my mind for a number of reasons which I then gave. One of them was the value that I thought that we should get from the Commission in terms of research, a two-way traffic between the Commission and the Minister. Even in the Bill as it is, and on what the Government have already initiated by way of research, we have shown very clearly the importance we attach not only to the collating of information, but also to the initiation of research.

5.0 p.m.

The establishment of a social research unit, which is what the Opposition are asking for,
to collate information relevant to the work of the Ministry…
to quote from the new Clause, although it has not been possible to move it, would not necessarily be the best way to secure what am sure both sides of the Committee want. The collation of informa-

tion is largely statistical and is necessary for many purposes other than research. That was made clear by some of the other speeches today. It does not seem appropriate to me that the collection and collation of operational statistics, required for, say, the Estimates or other financial purposes, should be remitted to a social research unit, when there would perhaps be limitations.

The phrase "initiate further research" could mean that the social research unit would provide not merely technical support for inquiries, but would be responsible—and I think that this is what some Members opposite were suggesting—for deciding the matters requiring further research and for settling priorities in research projects. This is surely the job of the Minister, who will consult with the Commission where appropriate and decide where research is most urgently needed.

Mr. Worsley: This was the whole point of putting the unit within the Ministry. It would be part of the Minister's responsibilities, and she could have been questioned about it. This is why we put it this way and not as an independent authority outside the Ministry.

Miss Herbison: If that is so then it seems to me that both sides of the Committee can question the Minister upon whatever she is responsible for. The Minister must be responsible for collating information, whether or not she has a special unit in her Department. She must also be responsible for research and again this means that the Opposition can question her. I want to make it perfectly clear that I and the Government believe that it is the job of the Minister to decide how research should be carried out and to supply priorities in research projects.
The second thing which I stressed in my Second Reading speech was:
…we intend that the members of the Commission shall cover a wide variety of interests, that they will be a source of advice to the Minister on many social problems, and that, in particular, they will assist the Minister's programme of research into these problems. I think everyone in the House and I am sure most people in the country would agree that research into social problems until fairly recently has been largely neglected. The Commission can be a power house of ideas in this and other fields."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th May, 1966; Vol. 728, c. 339-40.]


As I envisage it, we would have this body of knowledgeable people who will have assistance from the various sections in my Department and will be able to bring with them a great deal of outside knowledge. This is the proper way to achieve the kind of results which I think both sides of the Committee want.

Miss Pike: I would like to press the right hon. Lady on that. We accept that the Minister has final responsibility for judging the priorities and for initiating research. Our point is that society is moving very quickly. With great respect to the right hon. Lady, and to all of us here, we do not know what we do not know. We are amateurs and many of her advisers in the Ministry, and in the Commission, are enlightened amateurs, but still amateurs. Our aim is that there should be a scientific unit, under the responsibility of the Minister, which should advise the Minister about research. The unit could give the Minister the details.
The Minister mentioned that although we all knew that there were low-income families we did nothing about it. This was an assumption on our part. It came from our experience. The Minister will know from her term of Government that one has to have the tools to get money from the Treasury. One needs facts and figures and arguments. If we had had this sort of research unit and the number of research workers, had we had the computers to compile the information, we could perhaps have seen this picture sooner and we would have had the ammunition to go to the Treasury and solve this problem.
This is why we are saying to the Minister, "Do not rely upon amateurs, however enlightened and however well intentioned." We do not want to rely upon good intentions. We trust the right hon. Lady's good intentions, but she will not always be at the Ministry and that is why we would have liked it written into the Bill that there should be a responsibility upon the Ministry to have a scientific unit giving the finest possible technical advice.

Miss Herbison: What the hon. Lady is now saying is that if this scientific unit had been in existence some years ago we should have had the information and we

might have moved on the subject of the low-wage earner. Without such a scientific unit we have taken the initiative, in conjunction with certain advice, in making this survey. Apart from the survey, we have done a great deal of steady work.
The Opposition are under a misapprehension. They think that the setting up of a small group of people in the Ministry will solve almost all the problems. I do not accept that for a minute. The joining of these two Departments will bring a great deal of information to us. The Commission will also bring a great deal of help and advice to us. It will be for the Minister to decide the priorities. I am sure that that is the right way to deal with the matter.
I stress that we have every intention of providing adequately within the Ministry for the collection and analysis of information bearing on future policy. The Government attach the very greatest importance to research into the circumstances and problems of those who receive benefit, whether contributory or non-contributory. It is because of that that I said at the beginning that there is little between the two sides of the Committee. I warn the Opposition that the mere setting up of this kind of body would not solve the problem. We must have, within the Ministry and the Government, the will and the desire to tackle these problems, and I think that we have shown that we have that will and desire.

Mr. Worsley: The Minister has said that there is a little difference between the two sides of the Committee. There are, however, some differences.
The right hon. Lady seems to think that the present machinery of her Ministry has proved adequate in the past for this task and will prove adequate in the future. She thinks that there is no necessity for a professional, skilled research unit in her Ministry. This is where the difference between the two sides of the Committee lies. We do not wish to take away her responsibility; we want to increase it. We want to increase the width of responsibility of the Ministry of Social Security. I wish that the right hon. Lady had gone further and had said that she would have in her Ministry really skilled people to deal with these matters. Then we should have been able to agree with her much more.

Miss Herbison: I have tried to stress my belief in the importance of collating information and of research. Of course, we shall have skilled people within the Ministry to do this job.

Mr. Worsley: The right hon. Lady has gone much further than she went in her original remarks. I am very glad about that.
I am sorry that the Minister did not like my speech. I liked much of her speech. However, I did not like it when she turned to us, as so many of her hen. Friends have done, and said, "Why did you do nothing about this?" Both sides of the Committee appreciate that we have got to the stage in the development of our social security policy in which the emphasis is changing because our society is changing. To look back to the past when a great deal was achieved is wrong. What the country wants, and what the Committee wants, is to look forward to the future, and on this I am sure we all agree.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(DISSOLUTION OF MINISTRY OF PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSUR- ANCE AND OF NATIONAL ASSISTANCE BOARD AND TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS TO MINISTER.)

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

5.15 p.m.

Miss Pike: We all recognise that this is one of the most important Clauses in the Bill. It is the heart of the Bill. It s the Clause which unifies the two Ministries and gives the Minister the wider responsibility about which we have been talking.
On Second Reading, the right hon. Lady said that under the Clause four things would happen. It would help to co-ordinate policy. Secondly it would help the unification which would ensure that people getting contributory benefits would get all the necessary help in getting non-contributory benefits. Thirdly, the new Ministry would develop a new and comprehensive service to the public so that inquiries over the whole range of social security benefits could be dealt with at one point of contact. Fourthly,

it would end the sharp distinction between contributory and non-contributory benefits and, therefore, would do a great deal to remove the present stigma.
The Minister has said in this Chamber that the idea of merging the two Ministries was conceived 11 years ago. If the right hon. Lady and her right hon. and hon. Friends thought of this 11 years ago, they constitute 11 of the most barren years of political talk. Once we start thinking of co-ordinating social security policy so that we have a really comprehensive service we are driven inescapably to the conclusion—and everything said this afternoon drives us to this conclusion—that this is a very much wider field than the mere payment of benefits and pensions.
We have been talking about changes in our society—the changing needs and changing patterns. We are not looking back to the pre-1939 years when there was poverty, unemployment and misery. We are looking forward to the future when we have full employment, high wages, and good pension schemes. People of good will on both sides of the Committee are determined that real financial security will be built up. The problem will be less and less one of benefits and of giving financial aid. Of course, financial aid is tremendously important; but it is the easiest part of the problem. If the need is financial aid, the problem is comparatively simple; we can give the benefit and meet the problem.
In dealing with the problems of National Assistance and pensioners, we shall need, not the doctrine of uniformity. much though the right hon. Lady and her colleagues love this doctrine, but the doctrine of the flexible giving of help where it is needed most and of giving care as well as cash. Very often, an hour's help in the house is far more valuable than an extra £2. Very often a visit from the health visitor, the proper type of grouped accommodation with a warden, the proper type of welfare service, such as meals-on-wheels, meets, not only the financial need, but the desperate loneliness and feeling of insecurity and fear which people have. It meets the insecurity which we are trying to conquer.
In setting up this new Ministry, the Minister and her right hon. Friends have missed a most valuable opportunity. She


has taken this step forward and we wish her well in all her work. We have been talking about research which would help her in her work. Much of this matter is the responsibility of the Minister of Health. Much of it could be done with the help of the local health authorities—the local medical officer of health, and so on. So much of the help is given by the voluntary services. These come not so much under her jurisdiction, but under the Ministry of Health. There is the wonderful work done by the W.V.S. and by all the voluntary workers. If we are talking about co-ordination and a comprehensive service, we must bring more of this care into our thinking.
The Bill is a disappointment to us because it has missed this opportunity. Not only that, but there is the question of taking away the stigma of National Assistance and of charity.

The Chairman: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Lady, but the Clause deals only with the transfer of functions. It is not appropriate, on this Clause, to have a Second Reading debate on the Bill.

Miss Pike: We had a very short Second Reading debate, Sir Eric, and in describing the Clause—although I do not wish in any way to go out of order—the Minister said that the purpose of merging the two Departments was to give a comprehensive, co-ordinated service and to get rid of the stigma of National Assistance by bringing it under the umbrella of the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance. I was merely developing that argument—and I certainly will not go any further than you wish, Sir Eric—to say that, although the Bill will do much of what the right hon. Lady wishes to do, we have our reservations that it will not achieve all that she hopes.
Merely by changing the name, which is how most people will see it, we are not doing all that much. We hope that the change in the name will achieve the purpose, but very often a new name soon gets the old attributes of stigma attached to it. I know that
…a rose,
By any other name would smell as sweet",
but it could be that something else by any other name might stink as much

That is the reason for our great hesitation.
If the Minister had been able to go wider and take in a field which embraces the voluntary services, she would have achieved her hopes much more quickly and powerfully. As we all find in our constituency work, the people whom we are trying to help do not mind taking the help from the lady who comes round to do chiropody, from the health visitor or the meals-on-wheels service; they do not regard that so much as charity as National Assistance.
If we could have gone wider, we would have got rid of this stigma, because we would have embraced the whole field of security. We would have built up good neighbourliness, which is surely what we are trying to do. We are trying to tell these people that we are giving them this added help because we want as a society to be good neighbours to them, because we care for them and because we feel as a community that we have a debt to them. These are older people who very often are frightened, lonely and ill-informed. They accept this much more if they can have it in the context of all that they can think of as good neighbourliness.
But there is more to it even than that. We are very short of money for these purposes. The Minister quite rightly can take credit for giving extra benefit in the Bill, and we are all grateful for it, but she must known from her fights with the Treasury how difficult it is to get more money, particularly at this time, how difficult it is to get the extra staff who are needed and how difficult it is to increase expenditure. The right hon. Lady is fighting all the time in the Cabinet against other people with high priorities for her share of the cake.
People whom we use in this work are, or should be, expensive people because they are highly trained. The people working in National Assistance are highly trained and dedicated. We want more of them. We want more welfare workers and more social workers. The great danger is that we are not using our resources as economically as we could. We do not have the co-ordination that the right hon. Lady has talked about. We do not have a comprehensive system. Very often there is overlapping and we


are not using our resources or our manpower to the best possible effect.
I suggest to the Minister that, good though this amalgamation is, it really is not good enough, because it will not do the things that we all want to do. The right hon. Lady says that we must have a social strategy to plot the course ahead and vision for the future. To do this we must have a wider conception of our whole responsibility.
Let us get away simply from thinking of this as a financial problem. It is not only financial. The Bill will be on the Statute Book for many years; it will he a long time before we have another Bill of this nature. In the future, it will be far more a question of preventing trouble happening. We have all heard the proverb that
for want of a nail the shoe was lost;
Very often, for the loss of a few pounds' worth of some sort of care, a whole family has broken down. Very often the family breaks down because the mother is a bad manager or is inadequate. Very often an old person has to go into a home, costing the community a great amount of money, because she has not been able to cope and things have gone beyond the stage where she can be brought back into her own home. I say "she", but very often it is "he", also.
If, as the Minister says, we are looking for unification and a comprehensive service, if she is looking for the one point of contact where everybody can get the social security and justice that we need, if we are looking to get away from the stigma which, unfortunately, was attached to the old National Assistance, we have lost a great opportunity here, because we should have gone a good deal further than merely putting the Ministry of Pensions and National Assistance together. We should have brought in the Ministry of Health.
Having worked in the Home Office and in the children's department—I say this purely personally, without committing anybody else—I wish that the children's department could come into this, too, because that is where so much preventative work could be done. We are sorry that we could not have gone further. We shall continue to press the Minister to widen the scope so that we have far greater vision for the future and

so that we get all these problems coming under one umbrella and one responsibility with one strategy for the future.

Mr. Braine: As the Clause deals with the transfer of functions and liabilities consequent upon the dissolution of the Ministry of Pensions and the National Assistance Board it would seem appropriate to raise a small point, which is touched upon in the Financial Memorandum, as a consequence of the transfer of responsibilities from the local authorities.
The Memorandum points out that the local authorities will lose £1 million in a full year and it goes on to state that
The resultant increase in net expenditure will lead to some increase in the general Exchequer support to local authorities.
That is quite good news, but it has caused a little perturbation in one local authority which I have consulted and I think that the position should be spelt out in a little more detail. I wonder whether, when the Minister replies, she will say something about this.
The local authorities are already having to find an additional £9 million a year. There is their 25 per cent. share of the cost of rent rebate schemes, and ratepayers should not have to bear any additional burden. It does not look as though they will have to, but I would like to know whether the local authority associations were consulted about this and are happy about it and whether it has been taken into account in the new scheme for local authority grants which, I believe, the House is shortly to discuss.

Miss Herbison: The hon. Lady the Member for Melton (Miss Pike) has once again stressed her disappointment that the new Ministry will cover the work only of the present Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance and of the National Assistance Board. Her right hon. and hon. Friends wish to see the Ministry of Health taken in, also.
My first reaction to that is, what a very unwieldy Ministry we would have. I am sure that if hon. Members opposite give serious thought to all the work for which the Ministry of Health is responsible, apart from that mentioned by the hon. Lady today, and to all the work for which the new Ministry of Social Security will be responsible, they would realise that it might not be such a good thing after all.
I am sorry that the hon. Lady again repeated what she said on Second Reading. Then, scarcely anybody else made the same charge. This time I took down her words. She said that merely by changing the name we are not doing very much. I am sure that she has examined the Bill, and if she were less prejudiced about it she would realise that we have done a good deal more than change the name.

5.30 p.m.

Miss Pike: I was speaking on this very narrow point. I congratulated the right hon. Lady on the increased benefits, but on this point we are simply changing the name. We are not going much further than that and we are not bringing in any new functions.

Miss Herbison: Presumably, the hon. Lady thinks that if we brought in the Ministry of Health it would be all right. She has not realised the other changes. The 9s. allowance is not merely a money change. It is to ensure that we take care of many of the things which she has stressed. My mother lived until she was 86, and in the village in which I live I am surrounded by old people, and I therefore recognise that although money is important—and we ought not to belittle its importance—there are other things of great importance, too.
One of the tragedies which comes to old people, particularly those who live to what is called a ripe old age, is loneliness, because so many of their erstwhile friends have died before them. Loneliness can be a very great problem for these people and sometimes may cause tragedy among them. There are other matters of great importance—which I will deal with on the next Amendment—apart from financial aid to old people. The fact that we have not made a huge, unwieldy Ministry by bringing in the Ministry of Health does not mean that we shall not attend to these things.
May I return to the 9s. allowance which will be paid to the old, the long-term chronic sick and widows? One of the reasons—although not the only reason—is to give the old people a stable income.

The Chairman: I hesitate to interrupt the Minister, but on this Clause we are dealing only with the transfer of functions. It might be more convenient to

the Committee if the points which she is mentioning were dealt with on Amendments.

Miss Herbison: I am simply replying to points developed to a great extent by the hon. Lady. As she has developed them, surely it is important that within the context of the Clause I should indicate what we hope to achieve. Not so many visits will be paid to those people who are getting the 9s. a week, but the officers who go will have more time to do the kind of welfare job which I and the Government want them to do—not only to find out the financial needs of the old people but also to find out what are the welfare needs.
Despite what the hon. Lady said, it is not a question of duplicating services. These officers will contact—as do the National Assistance Board officers in the time available to them at present—local authorities and voluntary organisations in the area. The provisions which we have made in the Bill—I will deal with many more of them on the coming Amendments —will ensure that more time is available for what I consider the important welfare work which we want the old people to have, the problem families to have, and many others to have who need this assistance. This can be done under the new set-up of the Ministry of Social Security.

Dame Irene Ward: The hon. Lady is making a very important point when she says that these officers will be able to contact the local authorities. Will they have any power or authority? If they make representations on certain aspects to local authorities and the local authorities do not respond, where do they go from there?

Miss Herbison: The officers will follow up the case. No one can force a local authority to do these things, but in some areas local authorities provide many services about which old people know nothing, just as voluntary organisations provide many services about which old people do not know. We hope to help them to use the services which are provided, and also I hope to show local authorities which are not providing them the need to provide such services. I believe that the follow-up of the officers will prove of the greatest help.

Miss Pike: I have said how much we welcome the step forward which we are taking and how much we welcome the right hon. Lady's Ministry. I am not putting forward carping criticism. But what the right hon. Lady said bore out my argument that if these welfare visitors had not a divided responsibility but were working under the umbrella of one Ministry, their work would be much easier and the whole system much more satisfactory.

Miss Herbison: Is the hon. Lady suggesting that the work done by the health visitors of local authorities ought to be clone by a central body?

Miss Pike: If the Ministries of Health, Pensions and National Insurance were all one Ministry, this work would be coordinated to give comprehensive, overall responsibility. The right hon. Lady said that this Ministry would be too unwieldy. I had some responsibility in the last Administration in the Home Office where there were a number of departments, with Ministers of State looking after departments under the general supervision of the Secretary of State.
This works remarkably well. It means that we have highly responsible Ministers, with status, prestige and responsibility in the House, working in their own departments but constantly in touch with each other and co-ordinating their work. They have rooms next door to each other; they do not have to go to a different Ministry, which may be over the road or even on the other side of London. This provides the cross-fertilisation of ideas and responsibility which can arise at the level of Minister of State.
This need not be a cumbersome Ministry. I accept that it would be a very responsible Ministry. The right hon. Lady may call this criticism, but I call it putting forward constructive ideas. We want to see social security made into something which is good neighbourliness. I do not wish it to go out from the House of Commons—I am sure that it will not—that I think that changing the name will do no good at all. We all hope that it will achieve what we went to achieve, but we have to be realistic. We know that only changing the name is not going very far.
We believe that by having this more comprehensive service, and bringing in

the voluntary workers about whom the right hon. Lady talked, we can create that. feeling of good neighbourliness which would go a little further to remove much of the suspicion and doubt which unfortunately still surrounds so much of the wonderful work being done at present. The right hon. Lady knows from her own mother and I know from my elderly relatives how much these old people trust and even love those who make these visits to them.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3.—(THE SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFITS COMMISSION.)

Miss Pike: I beg to move, in page 3. line 10, at the end to insert:
(3) So far as is practicable, the officers and servants of the Commission shall have a duty to seek out those who are, or are likely to be, in need of help, whether by means of cash benefits or by means of either the health and welfare services provided under the National Health Service Acts or the welfare services provided under section 29 of the National Assistance Act 1948.
This is the nub of the argument—that we want to bring in the welfare services. We all recognise that the first step of applying for assistance is the most difficult step of all. We have heard recently about the number of people who still have not applied for assistance in spite of all the publicity which has been given. I heard this information on my car radio as I was driving to my constituency, and, if my memory serves me, many of these people still would not apply for help.
This is why we wish to remove the onus of applying for help from the persons who are in need. I know that the right hon. Lady will say that this is the intention and that welfare inspectors will go out and, as I accept, will have more time to spend in persuading people to apply for assistance and in building up confidence in their minds. But it is important to write into the Bill, as we wrote into the Children and Young Persons Act, 1963, an onus of responsibility "so far as is practicable"—these words are important—upon the Commission to go out and find those people who are in need. We cannot stress too much that many people are reluctant to take the first step, and it will be difficult to persuade them to do so.
But, as I said on Second Reading, many of these people are already on retirement pension and, with the added time and facilities we are to have under the more streamlined administration under the Bill, we should be able to build up a register of those who are on retirement pension. Building up the register will be the most difficult task, but once it has been done it will be comparatively simple to keep the register up to date and to ensure that those people are visited regularly and that their needs are known to the Commission.
Many of these people are at present in receipt of care, whether it is care from the health authorities or care from the voluntary welfare authorities. I use the words "comparatively simple" knowing how difficult in fact the problem is, but it would be a comparatively simple operation, by contact with these organisations, to find out through these channels those who are in need.
The psychological effect of putting the onus on the State would do a tremendous amount to make these people feel that this was something which the community as a whole wanted them to have. We are trying to persuade people that they must make use of all these facilities which are theirs as of right. That is why it is important that we should write into the Bill not just that it is our hope or intention, but that it is our responsibility as far as is humanly possible to find these people and to persuade them to use the facilities provided by the State for them.

5.45 p.m.

There is an interesting analogy with the welfare services provided for the war disabled which are described on pages 15 to 20 of the 1964 Annual Report on War Pensions. The extract which I want to read shows the type and range of work which is undertaken and which could be undertaken by the new Commission. It reads:
Welfare officers deal with queries about war pensions but their main task is to help pensioners with a great variety of social and personal problems. The welfare officers can solve (or help the pensioner to solve) some of these from his own training and experience and others through the appropriate statutory service or voluntary organisation, sometimes by co-ordinating help from several sources.
A pensioner with several children who was to appear in court for non-payment of rent

had left home, his wife was in hospital and the house was in an appalling state. Bad management lay at the root of all the trouble. The welfare officer persuaded the pensioner to return to his family and over a period helped him to sort out and manage his affairs so that the debts could be paid off, and the children's bedding could be renewed…".

The family was enabled to stand on its own feet again.

I see that the right hon. Lady is nodding approval. I know that she feels as much as I do that enabling people to stand on their own feet and giving them the self-respect which comes from fending for themselves is very important. That is why it is better for the inspectors to find trouble before it starts. There are two or three other examples in that Report with which I will not now delay the Committee.

It is encouraging that the Government have been persuaded to drop the idea that this problem could be dealt with by a simple income return, which I believe to have been the original idea. We have all now accepted that old people cannot fill in complicated forms and very often cannot understand regulations which we and the younger generation take in our stride. I hope that the right hon. Lady can go that one step further and make it that much easier by putting on her Ministry the onus of responsibility for finding these people, the people in need, those who are lonely, those who are frightened, those who are ill-informed, inadequate or incapacitated for some reason. They need the proper care which can save not only misery for themselves, but money for the community. If we can find them in time, we can help them to meet their problems and also save the resources of the community.

I hope that the right hon. Lady will be able to accept the Amendment. It does not ask her to go further than I know she wants to go, and it will commit future Ministers, from either party, to the onus of responsibility for finding these people rather than having them ask for help.

Mr. Paul Dean: I wish to support the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Miss Pike). I pay tribute to the work which the National Assistance Board does in the detection of need and also the work done by local authorities and the voluntary


bodies such as the W.V.S. and all those others who assist the Board to detect need. I hope that the right hon. Lady will feel that the Amendment is exactly in line with what she envisages as being the work of the new Commission. If she feels that it should be the job of the Commission to seek out those in need, I hope that she will see no difficulty about accepting the Amendment.
No one could possibly claim that the present work of detection is adequate, however good it is. We all know of the tragic examples when need is discovered because someone, by chance, finds the milk bottles piling up outside a house or flat. That still occurs in all too many cases. I was struck, as no doubt other hon. Members were, by the Report in The Times on the 6th June in which the Chief Constable of Leeds reported in his annual report that in Leeds in one year no fewer than 101 people had been found dead and 48 ill or injured. Those few figures from one city conclusively prove that there is still much more to be done in the detection of need.
When more than 1 million old people are living alone and when the number is likely to increase now that the phenomenon of the three-generation family is out and the days when grandmother, mother and daughter lived as one family have gone, probably for good, and when the building of one-bedroomed bungalows proves that we feel that if people want to live alone, it is a good thing for them to do so, the need for detection constantly increases.
I am not saying that the new Commission can do this unaided. It will need to work in close co-operation with the health and welfare authorities, the W.V.S. meals-on-wheels service, war pensions officers and a whole variety of other people. But the Commission will be the body with the basic information available. The new Ministry will be in contact with everybody in receipt of benefits—National Insurance benefits, supplementary benefits, war pensions, and so on—and will be in the best position to take on this responsibility. It will be able to do a great deal by having a register of old people in each part of the country. That will make detection easier. That is another good reason for putting this responsibility on the new Commission.
Another which will appeal to the right hon. Lady is something which she stressed again and again on Second Reading. She said that if it could be avoided we did not want to have people applying for benefit, but that we should take the help to them. Putting this statutory responsibility on the Commission is absolutely in line with the spirit of her speech and the Bill itself.
There is another consideration which has worried me in connection with the Clause and the Bill as a whole. The intention is to cut individual inquiries to a minimum. I see no objection to that, but disadvantages may arise from it. For example, the right hon. Lady told us on Second Reading that it was intended in future to review the needs of those getting benefits every year rather than every six months as previously. While I appreciate the advantages of cutting to a minimum the individual inquiries which may be made about resources, this means that those getting benefits will be visited by the officers of the new Commission only every 12 months instead of every six. There are dangers in cutting the regular visits by half, in that needs may not be as effectively detected because of the longer lapses between visits.
My hon. Friend the Member for Melton mentioned the many examples in the last Annual Report on War Pensions. In every such report there is constantly stressed the advantage of regular visits. I need not quote all the examples, for hon. Members will have seen them, but a sentence which is equally valuable in this connection is that which appeared in the 1964 Report and which read:
Regular visiting sometimes reveals needs which would not ordinarily come to light.
If we have found that valuable for war pensioners, it would be equally valuable for those getting the new supplementary benefits.
For all those reasons it is highly desirable to put this clear duty on the Commission to seek out those who are in need in exactly the same sort of way as present arrangements allow for regular visits to war pensioners.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: The Amendment is rather woolly. I do not know whether it is put forward for propaganda purposes, or


to draw attention to some need. However, we have to be more practical. No one has claimed that the new set-up will revolutionise the services which will be available.
On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend said that the new Ministry would be taking measures to ensure that as soon as possible on retirement or on subsequent widowhood every pensioner would be made fully aware of the supplementary pension scheme and either made a claim or gave a definite indication that he did not want to claim. The impression which I have gained is that it will only be among retirement pensioners and those subsequently widowed that this kind of searching out will go on. I would assume that they would also apply to just straightforward cases of widowhood, and, indeed, other cases in which there is need.
The Amendment talks in terms of cash needs and needs of the welfare services. I think that this is the crux of the dilemma of which we must all of us be aware. To search out people to give them a cash benefit is a relatively simple thing; I do not think there is any difficulty about that because, as I understand from the Minister, any applicant for any pension would be chased up or followed up to ensure that he would know what he can apply for, and if he is not applying for it there must be good reasons for that. It is when we get to the welfare side that we seem to run into difficulties.
Does the Amendment suggest, for example, that if somebody comes into the local office and indicates a change in family circumstances—that a child has gone to an approved school, for example, or that one or another of a hundred and one things which can happen to children has happened—there should automatically be some kind of welfare officer in the department to take follow-up action for these essential services? Or if there is a claim for guardian allowance, is there automatic follow-up to see whether the guardian needs some kind of professional advice? This does not seem to me to have been made clear by those who are supporting the Amendment.

6.0 p.m.

I must admit that I am not trying to press the Minister into something which she is not willing to concede at this stage.

There is certainly a real problem here, if we create the impression that we are to be able to obtain within the new department the solutions of the many social problems which will be within the knowledge of the officers of the department. As I say, I should like to have the Minister's thinking on this, because it obviously involves serious staffing problems in the Department.

What grade of persons will do this highly skilled searching out and initial interview? This is the kind of thing which those who are supporting the Amendment have not thought out. This Department cannot at the moment even get the officers it needs to do the tasks it is called upon at the moment to do. So while I am anxious to extend the field of the new Department, at least we should not raise false hopes at this stage till we have seen how the Department works with its handling of the cash side of the service, before, so to speak, splitting it into these groups, for that evolution of the social services which must come about in the near future.

Mr. Braine: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) doubted the practicality of the Amendment. I should like to assure him that in putting it down we were guided not by theory or by a desire for innovation, but by a growing body of experience which shows that improvement in income is only a part—an important part, but only a part—of the requirements of many of our elderly, long-term sick and handicapped citizens.
If the hon. Member is in touch with his constituents, as I am sure he is, he will know that the numbers of the elderly will rise sharply in the next two decades. He will know too that the problem we face is not primarily financial, but physical and moral. The problem will not be solved by adding a few shillings to the pension. Is is essentially how to provide a satisfactory, worth-while, dignified environment for literally millions of our fellow citizens who feel isolated in our modern industrial society.
This, of course, raises questions as to what sort of society we should be seeking to build, what kind of support the community is prepared to give to the increasing number of people who survive well beyond the limits of working life. Supplementing the incomes of many of the


elderly is important, but it will not by itself provide them with the specialised housing which they need, the extra care which they require in their own homes, the hospital treatment they are unable to get; nor will it, as the Minister herself testified only a short time ago, enable them to overcome loneliness, or to master a crippling disability.
While it is true that 94 per cent. of our old people are living in private households—only 6 per cent. are living in the care of hospitals and institutions—this does not mean—we know does not mean—that they are all living a comfortable independent existence. Far from it.
I referred earlier this afternoon to the valuable survey "The Aged in the Welfare State", conducted by Peter Townsmd and Dorothy Wedderburn. I think that the Committee would like to be reminded of what the survey revealed. About 250,000, or 4 per cent., of those aged 65 or over, depend on local authority home help services; but 330,000 feel the need for help with house work, and nearly another 270,000 say they do not feel the need but have difficulty with housework. Fewer than 70,000 have at least one meal a week delivered by the mobile meals service and nearly another 350,000 would like to have this service. Over 400,000 have regular chiropody treatment through a free or subsidised voluntary or local authority service, but another 670,000 feel the need for someone to attend to their feet regularly.
The survey revealed that over 200,000 have severe difficulties in hearing, but have never had an aural examination, or have not had one in the last five years. Over 300,000 have severe difficulty in seeing, but have never had an examination of the eyes, or have not had such to examination in the last five years. Only 30,000 to 40,000 are in sheltered housing with some community or warden services, but it seems likely from the survey that at least 300,000 or about 5 per cent. require houses of this kind.
Townsend and Wedderburn confirmed what a good many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee already knew, that many of those receiving certain services, particularly hearing aids, home help and meals services, are not getting all the help they really require from these services. They need help more frequently, and the services need

to be greatly extended in scope and variety. They also confirmed that the existing services are poorly co-ordinated. This is one of the discoveries we made when I was at the Ministry of Health, when we launched the local authority health and welfare long-term plan. When the local authorities' long-term plans were submitted and examined we saw for the first time just how wide was the disparity in the provisions they were making.
Permit me to say, in passing, that it is more than likely that even if we secured effective co-ordination of our health and welfare services we should probably be faced with absolute shortages of staff. buildings and equipment, due to the fact that under every Government we have simply not been devoting a sufficiently large proportion of our national resources to them. I readily concede that. I think, however, that if the present Government—and this is the answer to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Provan—had taken our advice and created a larger Ministry embracing the health and welfare services as well as social security it would have been possible at least to have tackled the whole problem comprehensively, to have measured the need, and to have decided upon proper priorities.
I concede that our Amendment is second best. But it seeks to put upon officers of the Commission a more positive duty than is envisaged in the wording of the Clause. I should like to give a practical example of how it might help in regard to a problem which the Bill simply does not face. Last month, Dr. Benians, the consultant geriatrician of the Southend group of hospitals, which serves my constituency, was reported as saying that he had only two-fifths of the hospital beds he needed for the elderly, and the number of aged persons needing hospital care would increase faster than the increase planned in beds.
Dr. Benians spoke movingly about the loneliness of old folk who drifted into South-East Essex, mainly from London, who lived alone and had no one to help them. He said:
The position of these people is desperate indeed. When they get ill we can't help them, and the fact that we can't help them is a major disgrace.


He went on to say that one of the biggest problems facing those trying to help the elderly was not knowing where the elderly were. A large number of them they know nothing about at all. The Ministry of Pensions knew where they were, but he understood that they would not say. They should. We have the right to know these things.
Dr. Benians is quite correct. I have served in the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, and I know that one reason for the Ministry not being able to provide the information is that, under the Official Secrets Act, it cannot divulge particulars of that kind. I think that the Minister will confirm too that another difficulty is that, even if it were decided to provide the information, the local offices of the Ministry keep their records alphabetically and not by district. Even the Records Branch at Newcastle keeps its files under the National Insurance numbers.
Under the Bill, the Commission would have no power to provide local authorities with the information which Dr. Benians suggests is so necessary. I am not saying that the information should be provided in this way. Here may I make a suggestion. I understand that, under their new pay award, family doctors will get extra payment for treating the elderly. It will be the task of local executive councils to compile area lists showing the general practitioners' patients aged 65 and over and to keep those lists up to date on an annual basis. The process has already been started by the executive councils, and it involves noting each patient's date of birth on his or her medical register card. It seems to me that that provides a nucleus of the register which my hon. Friend said is so essential and for which every social welfare worker is calling. May I ask whether the Minister has discussed this with her colleague, the Minister of Health?
Our Amendment would put a duty on the Commission to find a solution to the problem. It is clear that the duty ought to be put upon someone and that the Minister ought to make a decision about it.
One question which is relevant to what the hon. Member for Provan was saying is: what will the Commission's officers

do in situations where it is plain that there is not just a need for supplementary pension or allowance? I agree the officers of the National Assistance Board act with speed and humanity, and we all pay tribute to them for the work which they have done in the past and no doubt will continue to do in the future. But what will happen when they see that there is a need for some help, where there are no relatives nearby to give assistance, where there are no meals-on-wheels and no friendly visiting?
It is quite true that in the National Assistance Act, the Board is instructed to exercise its functions
in such manner as shall best promote the welfare of persons affected by the exercise thereof.
No doubt that requirement is continued. However, National Assistance Board officers tell me that in obvious cases of need they already get in touch with the local authority, and act at once, as the right hon. Lady said earlier. But they also tell me that this is often unsatisfactory, for two reasons. First, there is sometimes great difficulty in deciding at what point other help is needed. After all, that is a job for a trained social worker.

6.15 p.m.

Secondly, even if help is thought to be needed, no local authority has the statutory duty to provide it until there is a complete breakdown, until the health of the breadwinner or the mother of the family has given way, until there is delinquency or dire need for hospital treatment or Part III accommodation. The appropriate local authority will then move in; but not until then.

Surely the whole object of our health and welfare services should be to prevent that sort of situation arising. It would seem to me that a clear responsibility should he put upon the Commission or some other suitable co-ordinating agency.

This begs a question which the Bill does not answer. Modern social thinking accepts that a hard and fast line cannot be drawn between financial and other forms of support for the elderly, the sick and the handicapped. I hope that the Minister will address herself to that particular question in a moment. I think that I know what her attitude is, because she gave a clue to it in what she said a short time ago.

Whatever her answer I would hope that the committee set up under the chairmanship of Mr. Frederic Seebohm to go into the organisation and responsibilities of local authority personal and social services will fasten on this crucial point and will not hesitate to make recommendations.

I want now to say a word about the disabled, to whom we shall be directing Put attention in more detail later. The right hon. Lady gave the impression earlier to the Committee that she had the necessary power to give all the information to Parliament, and there was no need for a research unit because all the information could be extracted from the Minister by parliamentary means.

The Disablement Income Group says in its memorandum, which no doubt the right hon. Lady has seen:
Questions have been asked in the House concerning the number and economic situation of the chronic sick and disabled. The answers have been, as we knew they would be, entirely negative. Literally no statistics of the kind we need are available.

The trouble is that no one knows at the moment how many disabled citizens there are. As hon. Members know, there are two registers, each dealing with only a part of the total number involved. Registration is voluntary, and the advantages of registration are not all that apparent. The number of severely physically disabled persons registered with local authorities last year was 176,000. I am told that that is only a fraction of the number which should register. Similarly, it is thought that the 659,000 people on the Ministry of Labour's Disabled Persons' Employment Register represent only a proportion of the total number of physically handicapped persons capable either of open employment or employment under sheltered conditions.

Is it intended that the officers of the Commission should find out something about the physically handicapped and why they do not register? If not, why not? I could hazard some guesses as to the reasons, as could many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. There is a shortage of places in the Ministry's excellent rehabilitation units. There is a shortage of places in sheltered workshops. Moreover, disabled persons seeking work often encounter

acute difficulties of accessibility, transport and accommodation. They get no tax relief to enable them to overcome disabilities. In many cases, the struggle is too much for them, and it is easier to accept National Assistance.

I could continue at great length establishing the case for a unified and comprehensive Ministry, because this is the only way in which we can recognise and satisfy the needs which are beginning to surface and which many of us suspect have existed for a long time. I have no doubt that, at the end of the day, the right hon. Lady and her colleagues will agree that this is the right administrative answer, assuming that they stay in office long enough. What we are proposing now would ensure more effective social security than the makeshift arrangements envisaged in the Bill.

If we are to be denied the right administrative structure for the time being, we are entitled to ask that the Commission should be given power to pave the way to a more flexible and realistic appreciation of the real and changing needs of the elderly, the widowed, the chronic sick and the physically handicapped.

Dame Joan Vickers: I support the Amendment because I have had quite a lot of experience of dealing with people who are in need. What worries me is that when people come to my office all that I can do is put them in touch with the Assistance Board as it has been in the past and try to put the case before the Board. For this reason I support the Amendment, because I think we should try to strengthen our knowledge of where these people are instead of having them come to Members' offices in the way they do now.
The National Assistance Board in my area has been exceptionally helpful and kind, but when I write to say that there has been a change in someone's circumstances I am often told that it does not know that but now that it has the information it will be pleased to do such-and-such a thing. I wonder whether, if there are to be fewer visits in future, as I understand there may be, it will be possible to write to families periodically asking whether there has been a change of circumstances, because such changes are not always notified.
During the war we were very successful, especially in blitzed cities, in having a central information centre to which people would go and report where they were living. I wonder whether, in order to be able to search out these people in the way we are suggesting, it will be possible for the Ministry to ask the local authorities to put up a notice inviting people to give information or help about those who are in need. Perhaps neighbours could provide this information, and in this way the officers of the Commission or other voluntary organisations could find out who was in need.
Not long ago I had a party at my house for social workers in the area. I was astonished to find that a number of people whom I did not think it was necessary to introduce did not know one another even though they had been in contact on the telephone for many years. I think that these officers should contact other branches and organisations to get this knowledge about those who need help.
I believe that the right hon. Lady really wants her officers to be social workers, and I should like, therefore, to refer to the Younghusband Report which, in paragraph 22 on page 7, says:
The purpose of social work is to help individuals or families with various problems, and to overcome or lessen these so that they may achieve a better personal, family, or social adjustment. The function of social workers is to assess the extent of these problems. to give appropriate help, and to offer a supporting relationship"—
this is very important—
when this is required to give people confidence to overcome difficulties.
I should like the right hon. Lady to tell us how many of these officers she has in her Ministry, what type of case load she thinks they will have in future, and, if they are already overworked, how she envisages them carrying out their duties in future if we are to have them as social workers, understanding the people with whom they are dealing. I was a little worried when I saw that there were to be fewer visits in future. I think that these visits are all-important. Sometimes the visiting officer is the only person an individual sees for months, and one thing that should not be cut is the number of visits.
I should like to refer again to the Younghusband Report with regard to the duties of the National Assistance Board because, when talking about visits, it says that these are beneficial, and adds in paragraph 1011:
These provide a striking illustration of the inter-relationship between this statutory service and the health and welfare services.
The connection between those services is a great asset, and in paragraph 1012 the Report says:
These elderly people, many of whom are also blind or otherwise handicapped, are visited periodically by the Board's officers.
It would be a great pity if these visits were cut down in any way.
One other question which has not been referred to so far is that of the Board being allowed to pay the rent of people who are in receipt of assistance. All too often I find that rent is given for this purpose, but that, regrettably, it is not paid, and the Younghusband Report says in paragraph 1014:
Families with rent arrears receiving rent allowances from the Board are another case in point. The practice, advocated by the Housing Management Sub-Committee of the Central Housing Advisory Committee, of local authority housing officers notifying default to the Board at an early stage can often prevent ultimate eviction…
I hope that the right hon. Lady will stress this point to her officers in the future, because I have several times suggested in this House that when there are arrears it might be better to pay the rent direct to the housing authority concerned. It is a terrible temptation when someone is given £3 or more for rent, and there is a family to bring up, to spend the money rather than pay it as rent, with the result that he or she faces the possibility of eviction.
This applies particularly to local authority houses, but it would be advantageous if the landlord of a private house could be protected before the outstanding rent reached such a figure that it could never be repaid. I think that if someone misses paying rent for a fortnight inquiries should be made by the housing manager or the private individual to the Board, because once the rent has been missed for two weeks it is difficult to catch up. There is generally a reason for not paying the rent. It may be because of sickness, or because whoever pays the rent is not


a very good payer, and if inquiries were made at an early stage, I think that it would prevent a number of evictions.
We have talked a lot about elderly people, but quite a lot of the money goes to women who have been deserted by their husbands, and to unmarried mothers. I hope that they will be specially helped in the future, because these are the people whom we ought to seek out before their children are taken into care by a local authority. These are the people who need support. I hope that the officers concerned will keep in touch with the courts because, generally, the courts know when a wife has been deserted, because she goes there to claim maintenance. If a woman has been divorced the courts have knowledge of it, and it would be of great help if these officers kept in touch with the courts to find out where these people are living. Later on I shall have a suggestion to make about what we can do to help deserted wives.
I support the Amendment, and I hope that the right hon. Lady will accept it. If it were left to me, I would go even further and take out the words "so far as is practicable", and say:
The officers and servants of the Commission shall have a duty to seek out those who are, or are likely to be, in need",
and so on, because they should have that duty if they are to be proper social workers and make the new Ministry work as we want it to. It is very difficult for a woman who has been deserted to have to spend hours in an office trying to get help. The officers should have a duty to go out and help those in need.
If the right hon. Lady is not prepared to accept the Amendment, I hope that she will consider a compromise which will give her officers some greater status so that they can bring their knowledge and interest to the notice of the individuals concerned.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Mick Buchanan-Smith: In discussing this Amendment, we are coming close to the heart of the purpose of the social services. Important as is the whole need for more research into all the areas and types of poverty and hardship, we come to the real problem only when we consider the question of seeking out and dealing with

individual cases. It is, after all, in dealing with the ordinary person in difficulty or hardship that the social services are in their proper sphere.
That is why I feel that the formation of this much wider Ministry will enable it to deal much more effectively with cases of poverty and hardship. There is a great danger here that what it will deal with—perhaps more effectively—is only those cases of hardship and poverty with which it is already in contact. The real need is to discover more cases with which, at the moment, the social services are not in contact.
This was the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown). Although he seemed to question this Amendment, many of his arguments supported it. This is precisely what the Amendment is intended to do—not only to deal more effectively with the cases which exist, but to try to find other spheres and other individual cases which need help. Not only must our fight against poverty and hardship be waged on a wider front, which is probably what the Bill will enable, but we must also go more deeply into and be better able to detect individual cases as they arise.
This is not such a difficult problem in practical terms as the hon. Member for Provan made out. After all, the Ministry of Pensions and the officers of the new Ministry could do a great deal more work and make more progress through the efforts of those already engaged in this work. Mention has been made this afternoon of the work which could be done by those engaged in the health services. This is particularly true locally—through general practitioners, district nurses and local health visitors. This is one of the reasons why many of us on this side regret that the Ministry of Health is not being co-ordinated into the new Ministry of Social Security.
Mention has been made of how much more use can be made of other voluntary organisations in this respect—the W.V.S. and the Red Cross are examples—and also of the courts and probation officers. Officers of the new Ministry could do much more in seeking out and finding those in need through the efforts of those involved in work with young people. One of the particular areas of poverty and hardship mentioned in the Second Reading debate and again this afternoon is that


of the low wage-earner, particularly with a large family.
I know that one of the real problems of these people is that very often they are in no form of direct contact with the statutory welfare services as they are at present. That is why I believe that those who work in the Ministry of Pensions and in the new Ministry could achieve a great deal more if more work was done and more contact made with those already working on these problems. Perhaps the Minister could tell us what work is done by her officers through schools. Teachers in schools are in a unique position to know what is happening in the whole life and background of their pupils.
The other sphere which is important and very neglected is that of youth organisations. I say this with feeling because I have been involved in youth work over the past 12 years. I and those with whom I have been concerned know that we can go to the National Assistance Board and the Ministry of Pensions to put them in touch with a particular case, but how rarely the contact happens the other way round—regular contact and liaison between officers of the Ministry and youth organisations, who are in contact at ground level with the places where poverty and hardship occur.
I say this in no sense of criticism of the officers of the Ministry—I have the utmost admiration for their work, particularly for that of the officers of the National Assistance Board—but simply in many cases because they do not tend to do so. This is a positive field where much more liaison and good work could be done. If the Amendment is accepted, I do not necessarily envisage that the officers of the Ministry, in seeking out cases of poverty and hardship, will make immediate contact with individual cases. However, by their being in regular contact with those already in the field—youth leaders, school teachers or others —our welfare services could become much more effective.
Until we do this, we will not make full use of all the sources of effort in this wide and varied work. Only when we do this will we get to the root of the problem. That is why I believe that the Amendment is particularly important.

Dame Irene Ward: Whatever the fate of the Amendment, we have had an interesting and informative discussion. I am sure that all those concerned with the work of the right hon. Lady's Ministry will be grateful for the various informed points which have been put forward. I hope that the Amendment will be accepted, but whether it is or not we have opened up in our discussions tremendously wide opportunities for advance into the areas of making life happier, more just and more efficient for those who come within the orbit of the right hon. Lady's Ministry.
I apologise for having had to depart from the Committee before I heard the right hon. Lady's reply to a previous debate in which I intervened. I had another engagement and I therefore did not hear the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Miss Pike) on this Amendment, so she may have made this point unknown to me.
We have spent a long time discussing the problem of contacting people who might be helped if the whole of the services available was brought to their notice. The right hon. Lady has said quite clearly on many occasions recently that her Ministry has arrived at a figure of between 250,000 and 270,000 people who ought to be drawing National Assistance or, as it will be under this Bill, supplementary benefit. Therefore, that figure is available.
I should be very interested to hear whether the right hon. Lady can tell the Committee who has been responsible for finding out these cases and how this figure has been reached. I am certain that the information which she has given to the House is correct, but I want to know, if these figures were already available, whether it is now possible, as is suggested in the Amendment, for these people to be linked up in a co-ordinated and proper sense. It would be fascinating to the Committee to hear who made these inquiries, how they are being scheduled, what action, if any, has been taken. and what is the breadth and width of the problem of this very large group of people.
Most hon. Members who have supported the Amendment have spoken from experience, and I will do the same. I have regular consultations in my constituency


with the sort of people the Amendment is designed to help and, over the years, I have gained experience not only of the Problems that they face but of the problems which are faced by those who try to persuade them to go to the National Assistance Board, as it has been known. I have always found that by speaking to these people over a period of time and after explaining the rights which they have I am able finally to ask, "If I ask the National Assistance Board to choose a delightful and charming officer to visit you at your home, will you allow me to put your name forward?" That technique has never failed. I am referring in the main to the elderly who are in what is known as the small fixed income groups. I am glad to report that the Board has indeed always chosen a charming, delightful and acceptable officer to interview the individuals concerned. I believe that in at least 90 per cent. of these cases it has been found that the people were due for assistance from the Board.
If one wishes to get at the heart of this matter one must realise that the people who need persuading to go to the Board are those who are not aware of, or who cannot understand, our modern approach to life and Parliament's view of the help and assistance which they should receive. Many of them, through no fault of their own, have found it difficult to meet the ever rising costs of life and to understand the latest developments in our modern social services.
It is often difficult to explain to people who have never been in touch with the developing national social services the idea that those who are more fortunate than they are would like to see something done for the less fortunate who have served their country well. The latter point should be emphasised, because there are masses of people who are entitled to draw on the State's social services and who have served their country well over the years. These people are particularly entitled to receive help, but we must realise that many of them take a different view. In the past they have had to accept all sorts of things which I and my generation regarded as a normal process of life. The new ways must be explained to them and, while we all appreciate the latest proposals of the Minister, it will not be easy to persuade those with problems who prefer not to accept anything from the

State to accept the help to which they are entitled.
I suspect that although a large number of people have allowed themselves to be questioned in the Minister's inquiries and have given the details of the sort of lives they lead, there remains a large number of people who are as close as clams and who will never disclose some of the extremely difficult circumstances under which they live. I would, therefore, be grateful if the right hon. Lady would explain how her inquiries were conducted and how those investigated were chosen; whether the names were obtained from local authorities, voluntary organisations or through the courts. And since a number of people must have been involved in carrying out these wide investigations, this corps of people might form the nucleus of the sort of body proposed in the Amendment.

6.45 p.m.

I have found over the years that there is not very much time available in the House of Commons to discuss the sort of things in which I am particularly interested. I will, therefore, take this opportunity to comment on a letter which I received today. Although extremely interesting, I will not delay the Committee by reading it all. When the Government of which I was a member introduced the rather limited scheme of chiropody services for the old, it was introduced as a sort of experiment, and I suggest that the time has come when that service should be investigated.

This letter pays tribute to one local authority for the way it has operated its chiropody service, and I, too, pay tribute to that authority. I do not know whether that authority deserves the praise given it by the writer, but I have no doubt that it does. Although my constituent praises this authority, some of the weaknesses of the chiropody service generally are mentioned. I am equally sure that those criticisms are well-founded. We must remember that the service was begun as an experiment, and when one introduces an experiment there are bound to be failures as well as successes. After making some quite strong criticisms about the general tenor of the chiropody scheme, my constituent states:
…yet in Darlington, due to the farsightedness of the Medical Office of Health and


his Committee in placing chiropody for the aged into the surgeries of private practitioners, the situation is entirely the reverse".

That is, it is the reverse of the criticisms levelled by my constituent against the services being placed in clinics. The letter adds:
The Darlington service for the aged is the envy of the country".

I do not know about that, but the remark—and it must mean that Darlington's service is to be envied—shows that a great deal could be done to develop the chiropody service. If Darlington has hit on a scheme which is acceptable and efficient and meets the requirements of the aged for chiropody, can it not be emulated elswehere?

If the Amendment were accepted we would be able to conduct a survey of local authorities and find those which have first-class chiropody services. If, as is stated in that letter, Darlington has come out so well in this service, it might be possible to see that the benefits of that service are extended to the chiropody services in operation throughout the country.

It is in this way that ideas are born and how information about what can be done for certain sections of the community reaches the various Ministries. These Ministries rarely tell hon. Members whether the germs of ideas which have come out of our many debates on this subject have resulted in experiments or schemes being conducted by the Government. It is always the case that Ministers manage to produce the result in their own terms, and this has applied for many years, to Ministers of both Conservative and Socialist Governments. Now that we are considering over a wide sphere what progress can be made, remembering that those who handle these problems have a great deal of information such as has been given in discussing the Amendment, we would like to hear from the Minister, even if she cannot accept the Amendment—and I have a feeling that she will say, in her usual charming way, that she cannot accept it—that she will initiate discussions with her counterparts in the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government to see what can be done. Much can be done from the local government point of view, but all three Ministries could use the

knowledge and information which has been given to them so that we may go forward to be of greater help to the people of this country who have served the country in the past and who should, in return, be served better than they are at present.

Mr. Charles Doughty: I rise to support the Amendment. First, may I say how excellent I and other hon. Members have found those who were employed by the National Assistance Board and who will now go into the Commission referred to in the Bill. Where cases were drawn to their attention—very often by a Member of Parliament—they accepted promptly, courteously, efficiently and fairly.
There are many bodies, some of which have been enumerated in detail during the debate, who have had brought to their attention or knew of cases that should receive the attention and assistance of the National Assistance Board. There are also many people who are aware of the benefits that they can obtain but who, for reasons sometimes of pride—false pride, if I may say so—and sometimes of fear of being asked too many questions, which they are not in fact asked, decline or refuse to get in touch with the Board or its officials.
It is necessary, therefore, that the onus should be put on the new Commission to seek out these people and to see whether its assistance is required. If one looks at the Bill—I shall not discuss the merits or demerits of future Clauses to be considered, if for no other reason than that I should be out of order—one sees in Clause 6:
The requirements to be taken into account for the purposes of this Act include any requirement for—
(a) appliances or services in respect of which charges are for the time being authorised by or under the National Health Service Act 1951 or the National Health Service Act 1952;
and the rather extraordinary Clause 7:
Where it appears to the Commission reasonable in all the circumstances they may determine that benefit shall be paid to a person by way of a single payment to meet an exceptional need.
That is certainly a very wide Clause.
Will the possible beneficiaries who may be able to take advantage of these Clauses be aware, unless it is pointed


out by somebody employed by the Commission who is in a position to to assist them, of what are the initial benefits given by the Bill? It cannot be left to future beneficiaries to make application and if necessary to refer the members of the Commission to the Clauses which we shall discuss later in the course of the debates in this Committee.
Therefore, there are at least two sound reasons why this Amendment should be accepted so that the Commission will have a duty to seek out, through means which it must easily have at its disposal, those with whom it should discuss their troubles and problems and give those people the benefit and assistance to which they are entitled. I ask the Minister to accept the Amendment.

Mr. John Pardoe: I am in broad sympathy with the objects of the Amendment, but I think that it is a little too vague. First, I cannot see how the officers and servants of the Commission will carry out the duty which the Amendment seeks to impose upon them. We are told that their first duty is personal calls. There is also the duty of research. A third duty which has not been mentioned is that of publicity, which is very important. In fact the Minister has undertaken that officers in her Department will have a duty to co-ordinate research over its length and breadth. If that is indeed a commitment from the right hon. Lady there is no reason why we should press the Amendment.
I do not think that the officers of the Commission could carry out the duty of personal calls in the way in which it has been set out. I hope that there will also be within the Department officers with a duty to publicise the services which the whole Department offers. When I speak of publicity I do not mean only those little notices which can be lost on the vast notice boards in every post office. The services should be publicised in a proper professional and commercial manner.
The duty which the Amendment seeks to impose on the officers and servants of the Commission cannot be carried out in the case of the health and welfare proposals, unless these services are also brought under one Department. Proposals have been put forward for coordinating all the various functions, even

those of the Ministry of Health, in one Department. There is a case for far greater co-ordination of house-to-house visiting, local welfare services, child welfare services, the medical services and many of the voluntary organisations which have been mentioned already.
As the Minister has said, this would produce a vast and unwieldy Ministry. I accept this, but this co-ordination could be broken down on regional lines, and we could set up regional welfare bodies which would take over a large number of the services which are now administered, for instance, by the right hon. Lady's Department. I do not want to take away any function from her Department, but I am regionalistic at heart and I like the idea of spreading this coordination to the regions. Then we should overcome the problem of an unwieldy Ministry.
There is a need to seek out not only poverty but also social inadequacy. I do not believe that this can be done—particularly the seeking out of social inadequacy which requires personal calls—by imposing a duty on the officers and servants of the Commission. I hope that they will conceive it to be their duty, as indeed it is the duty of all good citizens. I should hate to think that any Minister would be held accountable because the Department had not discovered one case, or perhaps several cases, of social inadequacy which it could be said it should have discovered.
The cases of social inadequacy have to be sought out through dependants, neighbours, relatives, and people who live in the same village or in the same street. These are the people on whom we shall have to depend. I wonder whether, it this Amendment is carried, we shall then receive greater co-operation from them than we do now. Whenever one imposes a duty on a Government Department to do something, that automatically seems to remove it from the duty of everybody else. People tend to say, "It is their job—let them get on with it." I should not like that to happen here.

7.0 p.m.

One voluntary organisation which is superbly well-equipped to deal with the problem of seeking out cases of social inadequacy is the political organisation.


I do not want to try to teach my grandmother to suck eggs, but as a new Member of Parliament I would like to point out that all Members should persuade their organisations that it is their duty to seek out cases of poverty and hardship and bring them to their notice. This can achieve remarkable results. We are only too ready to impose upon our organisations the duty to seek out postal voters or removals, and I have discovered that by imposing the aforesaid social duty upon them they can bring to light many such cases. I admit that one ends up knowing that the better one does one's job the less one gets paid, and the more it costs.

As I have said, I do not wish to try to teach my grandmother—or my grandfather—to suck eggs, but I recommend that this duty should be carried out, just as much as those duties which the Amendment seeks to impose. It is our duty to discover these cases, and our organisations have superb machinery to hand to carry out this job. We ought to use it.

Miss Herbison: We have had a most interesting debate. It has been very wide-ranging, but it is none the worse for that. I want first to take up one or two specific points, and to deal with some fears which have been expressed by certain hon. Members because of the suggestion that visits to some people may take place less often in future. First, the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) asked me where I got the figure of 250,000 or 270,000 people in real need. I do not blame her for not knowing; there is always so much happening in this House and in our political life. But these figures arise from a survey announced in the House, the result of which has just been published. The hon. Lady will be able to obtain a copy from the Vote Office. There she will find the answers to all her questions.
The hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) was worried about the extension of the interval between visits from six months to twelve months. One of the important reasons for this is that we want our old people—and widows—to feel that they have a guaranteed income, and that it will not be cut. They will have

this for at least a year. That is why, in these cases, the review will be carried out once a year.
At the same time, we have said that old people who do not wish to have an officer calling upon them at their homes may make application in writing and confirm their wish by going to the office. This is to overcome the feeling of some old people—especially of those living in villages—that there is a stigma attached to a visit by an officer. They feel that other people will realise that the officer has come to give them financial help.
We have had to weigh one consideration against the other. I can assure the hon. Member, however, that in the case of a person who, through ill health or any other reason, needs to be visited more often than once a year, those visits will certainly take place. They will possibly take place more often than twice a year. Further, we shall continue to nominate someone—perhaps a neighbour or relative of such a person—to get in touch with the Ministry immediately if he thinks that there is some need that is not being met. For the vast majority of old people, therefore, there will be a visit once a year, if it is required, and for those in real need the visits can be much more frequent.

Mr. Dean: I am much obliged to the right hon. Lady for that informataion. Do I understand from what she has said that if, when the visit has taken place, the officer has ascertained that the old person is sick or is living alone, he will make a specific note of the fact and will in some way ensure that the person receives a visit sooner than twelve months hence?

Miss Herbison: That is exactly what I have been trying to say.
Many hon. Members referred to the question of welfare facilities for disabled ex-Service men, and suggested that we might adopt the same practice under the Ministry of Social Security for the person who receives non-contributory benefits. Again, welfare officers visit the homes of disabled persons usually only once every second year. But in the case of severely disabled ex-Service men we are fortunate in having so many voluntary organisations which provide help. We have the war pensions committees, whose members provide


a very good visiting service both for disabled ex-Service men and the elderly war widows. Here we propose that there should be a visit not less often than once a year, as now happens in the case of severely disabled ex-Service men who are visited by welfare officers.
The hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) felt that it would be wrong if blind people were visited less frequently by the Commission. I can assure her that if a blind person is living alone and is not regularly visited by the welfare officer for the blind—because, apart from our assistance officers, there are those welfare officers—an officer of the Commission will visit that person at least once every three months.
The hon. Lady also referred to the difficulties that people now get into when they use for other purposes the National Assistance money that they have been given to pay the rent. I have had instances in my constituency. This can cause very great hardship. Under Clause 17(3) the Commission will have power to determine that the benefits shall be paid to a third party. That third party may be the private owner of a house or a local authority. The subsection provides that this shall be done
Where it appears to the Commission that it is necessary for protecting the interests of a claimant or of his dependants…
I turn to the Amendment as drafted.

Mr. Braine: Would the right hon. Lady answer the question I put to her? Would not a nucleus for a register of old people be found in the lists now being prepared by executive councils? Has she consulted, or does she propose to consult, the Minister of Health? This is a crucial point.

Miss Herbison: I intend to deal with that point when I deal with the consultations which I have naturally been having with the Health Ministers, because both my right hon. Friends the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland are concerned.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) said that the Amendment is woolly. The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) said that the Amendment was wide-ranging and that, if the Commission and its officers were to perform their

other tasks effectively, this statutory duty should not be imposed upon them.
I will deal first with the Amendment as it appears on the Notice Paper and tell the Committee what its effect would he. It was quite clear that the hon. Member for Melton (Miss Pike) did not intend the Amendment to be as wide-ranging as its wording would imply, but it was evident that some of her hon. Friends wanted the Amendment to be very wide indeed. Having heard the hon. Lady's speech, I had thought that I would deal with what she thought was necessary, but having heard the other speeches I must deal with the Amendment as it is on the Notice Paper.
The Amendment as it is on the Notice Paper would make the officers of the Commission responsible for identifying the financial, health and welfare needs of the whole population. The Amendment would cover people of all ages, regardless of whether they came within the scope of the Bill and, indeed, regardless of whether they had any cause to have dealings with the Commission or with the Ministry of Social Security.
The Amendment, if accepted, would mean also that the Commission would be required to operate a universal welfare detection service, with certain limited. exceptions, one of which would be housing. Some hon. Members wanted even housing to be included. However, the Amendment as drafted would exclude housing but would include all the other social services for everybody in the community.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Mr. Kenneth Lewis (Rutland and Stamford) rose—

Miss Herbison: The hon. Gentleman came in very late, almost at the end of this debate. He has a habit of doing that. This has been a very long debate. I want to answer it in as much detail as I can.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Lewis rose—

Miss Herbison: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order. I must point out to the right hon. Lady that I had a Committee upstairs or I would not have arrived late.

The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Sydney Irving): That is not a point of order.

Miss Herbison: I am not complaining about the hon. Gentleman having a Committee upstairs, but I want to deal with the many valuable contributions which have been made.
I must make it clear, as most hon. Members have suspected, that the Government are not able to accept the Amendment. This does not mean that we do not feel that there is an important piece of detection work to be done. The hon. Lady the Member for Melton stressed the importance of ensuring that all needs, not only financial but also welfare needs, should be brought to light. The Government agree with this point. We are determined to do everything possible to reduce the risk of such needs being overlooked, because if welfare and health needs are overlooked very great hardship can ensue to those concerned. I am in complete agreement with the hon. Lady that the lack of such services as home helps and meals on wheels—things the hon. Lady mentioned on Second Reading—can often cause almost as great hardship as lack of money.

7.15 p.m.

I hope that I have made it clear that there is not any lack of sympathy with the case which has been advanced or with the desire that we should do everything possible to ensure that there is proper detection. There are, however, a number of valid reasons why we cannot accept the Amendment. It is so widely drawn that it would be completely unworkable, even taking into account the words stressed by the hon. Lady the Member for Melton—
So far as is practicable".

If the intention is, as I think the hon. Lady's intention was, though it was not the intention of some hon. Members, to limit the detection service to the work which it is already intended that the Ministry of Social Security should cover, the Amendment would add nothing to the Bill. As it stands, however, the Amendment would bring about a universal detection service. It would apply to all those over pension age, to all those under pension age, to all those in work and to all those out of work. This is what hon. Members opposite desire. The Committee must realise that, if this is the detection service that hon. Members want, it would require an enormous corps of visiting staff. A wide range of professional

skills would be necessary. There have been quotations from the Younghusband Report to illustrate the type of work which would be necessary.

We must be realistic. The Committee knows that people of that calibre in those great numbers are not available at present. With the staff that are available, much of the work would be negative, if we accept the Amendment at its face value. I do not think that we can afford to do that at this stage. Further, much of the work would inevitably overlap that of the local authorities.

I was very interested in the excellent contribution made by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith). He spoke mostly about the voluntary services. There is the work done by local authorities through health visitors and district nurses, to give only two examples. There is also the invaluable work carried out by voluntary organisations. In an area of scarce trained manpower, it would be silly to have such an overlap. To attempt to establish a welfare detection service as diffuse as the Amendment asks us to do would be tantamount to refusing to consider priorities. Any responsible government must consider priorities. I hope that the Committee will agree that the right course is to begin to tackle the problem where the need is clearest. That is what we propose to do under the Bill. People, as they get older, by the very nature of things become more frail. They need more help. Because of that, we believe that it is amongst the old that we must make a real start. I believe the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine), when he spoke, realised that it is amongst the old that we must make a start. As I said, I think that the hon. Lady and I are not really divided on this matter.

There, then, is our priority as a Government in the light of the circumstances that I have been discussing—that we must make a real start with the old. If this is what the hon. Lady really feels, it seems to me that we do not need any amendment to the Bill. The Bill already provides in Clause 3(1) that the Commission
shall exercise the functions conferred on them by this Act in such manner as shall best promote the welfare of persons affected by the exercise thereof.

Welfare does not mean just financial aid. it means that when the National Assistance Board officer calls, not only on the old—although I think at this stage we must be particularly concerned with the old—but on anybody else who benefits under this Bill, the officer tries to assess welfare needs as well as financial needs. The officers of the new Ministry will have this job to do. Therefore, we have provided the power in the Statute to carry on a detection service for both financial and welfare needs. I am sure from what I have said on Second Reading and on other occasions that the Committee will realise that the Government have every intention that these powers shall he fully exercised.

With regard to those receiving supplementary pensions or allowances, the Commission will have power to do what the Amendment asks. When a person makes a claim for a supplementary pension, and later when the award is reviewed by the Ministry's officers, they will be concerned I stress this again because it has been mentioned so often on the benches opposite—not only with the financial needs of the people whom they visit but with the welfare needs. Welfare needs cover many of those things that have been discussed. Having ascertained the welfare needs, it will be the duty of the officers to get in touch with the local authority if the local authority provides the service, or with the voluntary organisations if it is known that a voluntary organisation provides the service.

Of course, this will not be simply a one-way traffic. We find even at present—and I hope it will be increased—that when the local authority officers—perhaps the district nurse or the health and welfare officers—visit people, they often find that not only is there a welfare need but also a financial need and they get in touch with the National Assistance Board. In the future they will get in touch with the Commission. Therefore, we shall have this two-way traffic. This procedure obtains at present, but for the reasons that I have given I hope it will be extended.

However, we are going even further, and I have made this clear before. It is the Government's declared intention that the Commission shall seek out particu-

larly those amongst the old and the widows who may be entitled to financial help. Personal contact will be needed. A pensioner, on getting his pension book. will be informed of what help he can get in non-contributory benefits. If no letter is received by the Commission or the Ministry stating that the man or woman concerned does not want any help, personal contact will be made. That is not done at present. It is our intention that there shall be this further extension, and this will apply not only to the person who retires but also to the woman who becomes widowed.

We hope that there will be a follow-up. It may be discovered that no help is required by a woman on attaining 60 or by a man at 65. But sometimes welfare, health and financial needs arise and there will be a follow-up to ensure that those who did not want help in the first instance are really looked after when they subsequently need it.

I have dealt as quickly as possible with all the points that have been raised. To sum up, the new Ministry will indeed be seeking out financial and welfare needs across a much wider sector of the community than the Board is at present able to do. This will be a real improvement on the present position. But I must tell the Committee that this cannot be the end of the road. There is still, and there will continue to be, much to be done, and this brings me to the point raised by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East.

The Minister of Health, the Secretary of State for Scotland and I have been studying this problem very closely to see what more can be done to ensure that health and welfare services are given to those people who need them. It has been suggested that because all the relevant Ministries are not in one corridor to facilitate the Ministers of Health, Social Security and Housing in getting together, nothing at all is done. I take the hon. Lady's point, but I can assure her that the Minister of Health, myself and other Ministers—the hon. Lady mentioned the Home Office—have been giving considerable thought to this matter. As hon. Members will recall, reference has been made to the Seebohm Committee. I can assure the Committee that the Ministers concerned are giving thought to the


matter, and this Bill will lead to an extension of the detection service.

However, the Government are not satisfied that that is the end, and we are giving further consideration to what more can be done. This Amendment, however, is not the way to do it, and I therefore ask the Committee to reject it.

7.30 p.m.

Miss Pike: We are grateful to the Minister for her full explanation. Of course, we accept that her intentions are in line with all the speeches that have been made this afternoon to establish this detection service. Although there is very little between us in the goal which she and I want to achieve, there is a great difference in the means by which we want to do it. The hon. Lady says that a lot is being done and that ways are being found. We on this side of the Committee want to put the onus and the responsibility on to some specific Minister to make certain that coordination is established with all the local welfare organisations.
We know that at present there are a tremendous number of people working upon this; there is a tremendous amount of overlapping and we also know that there is a great deal of ignorance as a result of this. We believe that if we write into the Bill the onus of responsibility, wherever practicable—and those words are very powerful and important, because it means that we do not ask the Minister to do the impossible—to seek out these people, it will force coordination at local level by these various organisations. This is one of the most valuable things which we wrote into the Children and Young Persons Act. I keep coming back to this because I was responsible for bringing that Bill to the House.
The Bill can go even further than the forced co-ordination at local authority level. We accept the Minister's intentions and we know that she wants to do these things, but we are realists and know that unless there is an onus of responsibility put upon a Minister things move forward too slowly. If we are to bring in the Minister of Health and other Ministers, this is the way to make certain that we have this wider scope and co-ordination.
I accept that it will mean that if we do our job properly, however we do it, whether by intention or onus of responsibility, many more skilled social workers would be needed. By writing this onus of responsibility into the Bill, we will be forced to use these people properly. People are getting married earlier, and there will be many young married social workers who could give part-time help. We can bring them in in this local co-ordination. The people I am frightened about are those about whom the Minister was talking, the borderline cases who, at one moment in their lives, are just all right, and then, because of exceptional circumstances, inflation, the movement of forces in society, they are at risk. They may be young or old people and it is absolutely essential that we use all our forces at local level to make certain that these people are detected. We believe that wherever practicable there should be this onus of responsibility and it is for these reasons that we shall divide on this Amendment.

Miss Herbison: I am very surprised indeed at the decision of the hon. Lady to divide. I could understand her back benchers wishing to divide, but it is completely against what I understood her to mean when she nodded assent to what I said. It is clear from Clause 3(1) of the Bill that all the power that is needed is there. If the hon. Lady wants to divide the Committee, we will be quite happy.

Miss Pike: I nodded because I was believing that the Minister's intentions were there, but I know that the Minister will not always be there and I want to make absolutely certain that the onus of responsibility is in the Bill.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I arrived late in this debate and heard two speeches. I had been detained in a Committee upstairs. When I asked the right hon. Lady if she would give way, I was quite prepared for her to say that she did not intend to do so. Instead, she made two comments which were in the form of debate about my attempt to get her to give way. First of all, she said that I had not been in the debate, which was perfectly true. Then I had to explain the reason for that on a point of order. Then she said that I made a habit of coming into debates and speaking.
I must tell the right hon. Lady, and she knows it perfectly well, that I sat through the Second Reading of the Bill. Even supposing I as a Member of the House of Commons, came in here—

The Deputy Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bring himself to the Amendment.

Mr. Lewis: I am dealing with what happened to me on this Amendment. The right hon. Lady—

The Deputy Chairman: Order. What is under discussion is the Amendment

on the Notice Paper, not what happened to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Lewis: I am very anxious that it should be made clear from the back benches that we may have to put up with a "we are the masters now" attitude, but we are not prepared to put up with "we are the mistress now" from the right hon Lady. That is all I wanted to say.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 121, Noes, 202.

Division No. 17.]
AYES
[7.34 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Astor, John
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Baker, W. H. K.
Glyn, Sir Richard
Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael


Batstord, Brian
Goodhart, Philip
Nott, John


Bell, Ronald
Gower, Raymond
Onslow, Cranley


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Grant, Anthony
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Biffen, John
Grant-Ferris, R.
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Biggs-Davison, John
Grieve, Percy
Pink, R. Bonner


Black, Sir Cyril
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Pym, Francis


Blaker, Peter
Gurden, Harold
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Body, Richard
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Bossom, Sir Clive
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Roots, William


Braine, Bernard
Higgins, Terence L.
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Buchanan-Smith,Alick(Angus,N&M)
Hill, J. E. B.
Russell, Sir Ronald


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Holland, Philip
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hornby, Richard
Scott, Nicholas


Burden, F. A.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Sharpies, Richard


Campbell, Gordon
Hunt, John
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Cooke, Robert
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow,Cathcart)


Cordle, John
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Cortield, F. V.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Costain, A. P.
Jopling, Michael
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
Kimball, Marcus
Vickers, Dame Joan


Crouch, David
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Crowder, F. P.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Wall, Patrick


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Ward, Dams Irene


Currie, G. B. H.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Weatherill, Bernard


Dance, James
Loveys, W. H.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Dean, Faul (Somerset, N.)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Whitelaw, William


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Doughty, Charles
Marten, Neil
Woffige-Gordon, Patrick


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Worsley, Marcus


Eden, Sir John
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wylie, N. R.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)



Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Errington, Sir Eric
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Mr. Jasper More and


Eyre, Reginald
Monro, Hector
Mr. George Younger.


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Morgan, W. G. (Denbigh)





NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Bishop, E. S.
Concannon, J. D.


Alldritt, Walter
Blackburn, F.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda


Anderson, Donald
Booth, Albert
Cousins, Rt. Hn. Frank


Archer, Peter
Boston, Terence
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)


Armstrong, Ernest
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Grossman, Rt. Hn. Richard


Ashley, Jack
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Proven)
Cullen, Mrs. Alice


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Davidson,James(Aberdeenshire,W.)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)


Barnes, Michael
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)


Barnett, Joel
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)


Baxter, William
Cant, R. B.
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Beaney, Alan
Chapman, Donald
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Coe, Denis
Davies, Robert (Cambridge)


Bidwell, Sydney
Coleman, Donald
Davies, S. 0. (Merthyr)




Detargy, Hugh
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Dell, Edmund
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Dempsey, James
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Price, William (Rugby)


Dewar, Donald
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Randall, Harry


Dickens, James
Judd, Frank
Rankin, John


Dobson, Ray
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)
Redhead, Edward


Doig, Peter
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Reynolds, G. W.


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (Filth & C'b'e)
Lawson, George
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Ellis, John
Lee, John (Reading)
Robinson, W. 0. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


English, Michael
Lestor, Miss Joan
Roebuck, Roy


Ennals, David
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Rogers, George


Ensor, David
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Faulds, Andrew
Luard, Evan
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)


Fernyhough, E.
Lubbock, Eric
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Fletcher, Sir Eric (Islington, E.)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Ryan, John


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mahon, Dr. J. Dickson
Sheldon, Robert


Floud, Bernard
MacColl, James
Shinwell, Rt. Hn, E.


Forrester, John
MacDermot, Niall
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Fowler, Gerry
Macdonald, A. H.
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Freeson, Reginald
Mackintosh, John P.
Slater, Joseph


Gardner, A. J.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Small, William


Garrow, Alex
McNamara, J. Kevin
Spriggs, Leslie


Ginsburg, David
MacPherson, Malcolm
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Gourlay, Harry
Mapp, Charles
Stonehouse, John


Gray, Dr. Hugh
Marquand, David
Symonds, J. B.


Gregory, Arnold
Mendelson, J. J.
Tuck, Raphael


Grey, Charles
Mikardo, Ian
Varley, Eric G.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Milian, Bruce
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Wallace, George


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Moonman, Eric
Watkins, David (Consett)


Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Morgan, Elysian (Cardiganshire)
Weitzman, David


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wellbeloved, James


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mulley, Rt. Hon. Frederick
Whitaker, Ben


Harper, Joseph
Murray, Albert
Whitlock, William


Hattersley, Roy
Newens, Stan
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Hazell, Bert
Norwood Christopher
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Henig, Stanley
Ogden, Eric
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Orme, Stanley
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Hilton, W. S.
Oswald, Thomas
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Hooley, Frank
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sitn)
Winnick, David


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Paget, R. T,
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Howie, W.
Palmer, Arthur
Woof, Robert


Hoy, James
Pardoe, J.
Wyatt, Woodrow


Hughes, Fit. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Park, Trevor
Zilliacus, K.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)



Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Pentland, Norman
Mr. Alan Fitch and


Janner, Sir Barnett
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Mr. Neil McBride.


Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&St.P'cras,S.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Dame Joan Vickers: I wish to thank the Minister for providing in the Bill that there shall be at least two women members on the Commission. However, I object to the fact that this has to be done. I look forward to the time when women are selected for their work and not because they are women. We do not come to the House of Commons as women Members of Parliament; we come as Members of Parliament. But I hope that this will not be a precedent and that women will not be allowed to serve on commissions or committees unless provision for it is written into the Measure. I thank the right hon. Lady for doing this. I appreciate that it has to be done.

Miss Herbison: I agree completely with what the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) has said. I came to the House of Commons not as a woman Member of Parliament, but as a Member of Parliament. I hope that the day will come when women will be allowed to serve in these capacities for their own qualities and abilities. If we had not put this provision in the Bill other hon. Members would have insisted that we did put it in. Therefore, the safest thing to do was to put it in.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4.—(RIGHT TO BENEFIT)

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. John Astor: I wish to draw attention to what is I think a serious deficiency in the Clause in respect of people who will be allowed to benefit under the new non-contributory arrangements. On Clause 2, the Minister referred to the fact that the long-term chronically sick would gain the extra 9s. provided by the Bill, but she omitted to say that chronically sick wives or seriously disabled wives of men who are in full-time employment are not at present eligible for benefit of any kind. This is a problem with which I know the right hon. Lady is concerned, because she has referred to it on a number of occasions and has promised to undertake to try to correct this anomaly. I had hoped that the Bill would provide a suitable opportunity to bring in benefits for this group of people.
On 22nd March, in referring to the policies carried out by the Government, the Minister said that they had dealt speedily with the needs of the old, the sick and the disabled. I hope that she will not rest there and that she will continue to try to help these disabled people. Previously, this was resisted on the ground of the contributory principle, but the Bill specifically supports non-contributory pensions, so I should have thought that that argument was no longer as valid as it was. War pension improvements and improvements in constant attendance allowances for people who are seriously disabled have recently been announced.
This problem, which is growing, is of comparatively recent origin. The medical profession has made great advances in prolonging the expectation of life of people who suffer from such diseases as respiratory poliomyelitis and multiple sclerosis. There have also been great improvements in the machinery available to people who need special breathing apparatus. Whereas, previously, they could be treated and looked after only in hospital, there is now portable equipment—the Ministry of Health has played its part in developing it as well as private enterprise—which has made it possible even for some people suffering seriously

to live in their own homes. I am sure that the right hon. Lady will agree that it is very desirable that, where possible, people suffering in this way should live with their families and be part of the family life for the benefit of both themselves and their family rather than have to stay as long-term patients in hospital.
It is possible to argue on financial grounds alone that the cost of maintaining a patient in hospital is about £40 or £50 a week, whereas at home the cost to the country is not anything of that order and frees a hospital bed. More important is the human aspect.
I had a constituent who contracted "polio" 12 years ago, when she was a young married woman with two children. She was able to talk her way out of hospital and return home. Although since then she has not drawn breath without the aid of mechanical apparatus, she takes part in the family life. She has kept the family united. When one goes into the home, one finds an atmosphere of friendliness. It is a well-run home which would have broken up if she had had to remain in hospital and she would probably have deteriorated mentally. The members of the family lead active and useful lives.
My constituent is not a unique example, but an outstanding example, of courage. She has the use of only a few muscles in her feet with which she can operate a dictating machine. She has taken a diploma at the London School of Journalism and is a staff reporter on the local evening newspaper.
Such people show courage. They are able to make a real contribution to life and to lead a life which is constructive and useful. Unless, however, we are able to help them to live in their homes, we make much more difficulty for them. Great strain is caused to the family which has someone permanently incapacitated and for whom a nurse or domestic help must be constantly available.
At present, a fully employed husband has to pay for some of this attendance. I know that local authorities do what they can, but some of the attendance and nursing care has to be provided by the husband. This imposes a financial strain on the family and a mental strain on the disabled person, who feels that she is depriving her children and husband of


some of the luxuries of life or of a holiday away from home which they might otherwise have been able to afford.
I am sure that the Minister is concerned with this type of case, to which she has referred in the past. Hope springs eternal, and I hope that the right hon. Lady might be able to see her way to bringing this class of disabled person within the ambit of the Bill so that they may be eligible for these non-contributory benefits as of right.

Mrs. Lena Jeger: As the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Astor) has pointed out, subsection (2) of the Clause provides that
Where… the requirements and resources of any person fall to be aggregated with and to be treated as those of another person that other person only shall be entitled to benefit.
Because it is important, as, I am sure, the whole Committee will agree, that people outside Parliament, especially those who may be disabled and need help from the Bill, should be enabled to understand what we are trying to do more easily, perhaps, than some other recent legislation has been understood, I make no apology for asking my right hon. Friend the Minister for a measure of clarification, with which I am sure she will be glad to help us.
I follow the hon. Member for Newbury in taking the Clause as referring to the position of a married couple. From Clause 8, however, I find that any person in full-time work is excluded from the benefit of the Bill. What worries me, therefore, is that a person who, under Clause 4, is aggregated, however disabled that person might be, with a person in full-time employment, is denied any benefit from the Bill.
This is a measure of social injustice which, now that we have a truly compassionate Minister and a Government who are determined to make great progress in this direction, I hoped that we might have taken the opportunity of the Bill to remedy. It is not a new problem. The chronic sick have been with us since the beginning of time, but I very much welcome the increasing public concern on this question.
The heart of the dilemma is that no Minister, of any Government, has ever

been prepared to recognise that a woman working in her home should be regarded as fully employed. Goodness knows, that is an attitude which is quite unacceptable to any mother who is trying to bring up a large family. But we have never accepted as an insurance statistic the married woman working in her own home. When she works outside her home, she has an optional right to insurance, but only 1 million married women working outside their homes have taken up their full rights under National Insurance.
That means that if a mother who has decided—and who is to say that she has decided wrongly?—to stay at home and make that a full-time job, particularly while her children are small, is then struck down by a crippling, disabling disease for the rest of her life, the whole family are impoverished. It can destroy the living standards for the children and for the husband and affect the whole fabric of their lives, and yet, although it is her disablement that produces a situation of chronic poverty to a family, it seems, if I read the Bill aright, that this is a direction in which we are not able to promise any alleviation.
I know that in cases of this kind local authorities give all the help they can, but I am thinking of people who need more than the routine visit of the home help or the health visitor. I know of several individual cases, and had we made faster progress with the Bill, I would have wanted to speak at greater length. Most hon. Members will know of families in which the husband is out at work all day, struggling to keep a home together, doing the housework at night, looking after the children and trying to find someone whom he can pay to come in and help while he is at work, which to a person receiving a low wage is often difficult.
It means that money is spent in that way which should be spent on the children's food, or on other necessities for the family. The basic principle of the insurance status of the married woman is, I shall probably be told, far beyond the ambit of the Clause, or even of the Bill, but it seems to me to be at the heart of our wrong thinking in this matter.
I would like to know from my right hon. Friend the Minister, who is, I know, more than ready to help in every kind of


difficult case, whether there is not a possibility of this situation being reconsidered. The number of people involved might not be very large. There are precedents in other countries for the payment of non-contributory disablement benefit. I would be sorry if I thought hat we were to remain indefinitely behind other countries which had found a solution, however small, to this difficult problem.

Dame Joan Vickers: I agree with what the hon. Lady the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger) has said, but I would like to raise a Further point concerning subsection (1) of the Clause, which states that
Every person in Great Britain of or over the age of sixteen whose resources are insufficient to meet his requirements …
I should like to know from the Minister why, at present, the age of 16 is mentioned. I presume that it is because it is expected that the school-leaving age will be raised to 16.
I wish to draw the Minister's attention to a case with which I am familiar. The family consists of a father, mother and four children, aged 6, 8, 12 and 15 years. The husband works as a labourer and earns £9 5s. a week, after deductions, and he has a rent of 25s. He has a son who, regrettably, is disabled, who is now 15 years of age and has, therefore, had to leave school but has not been able to find work.
I understand that the family is not entitled either to family allowance or to National Assistance. The total income of the family is, therefore, £10 3s. If it were possible for them to have National Assistance—in other words, if the father did not work—I understand that the family would get £14 1s. 6d. Therefore, this young boy, through no fault of his own, reduces the income of the family because he is unable to work.
I would like to know from the Minister whether, at least until the school-leaving age is statutorily raised to 16, she will allow cases such as this to be eligible for assistance.

8.0 p.m.

Miss Quennell: May I follow the eloquent plea of the hon. Lady the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger) in again drawing to

the Minister's attention the plight of the incapacitated housewife which I mentioned on Second Reading and again earlier in today's debate. I support everything the hon. Lady said about the difficulties suffered by the houswife and family so afflicted. It is not only the afflicted woman who suffers but also her husband who has the extra financial burden of supporting the home and also the children, who lose the whole-time attention and care of the mother. Indeed, their entire time is spent in looking after their mother.
When the mother goes into hospital it costs the State about £1,000 to keep her there. if her husband is entitled to claim full fiscal relief he is entitled to the princely sum of £35 a year, which is quite derisory in comparison. It will cost him about £600 to keep his wife at home. The need of such families is therefore apparent. But these are the families the numbers of which it is very difficult to assess. It is almost impossible to find out the number of families where the housewife is afflicted in this way from such diseases as sclerosis or polio. I have tried to ascertain the numbers involved and I have failed. We need to help these families. I hope that the right hon. Lady will pay attention to my earlier plea and that of her hon. Friend to help this category of family.

Miss Herbison: Again we have had a very good debate. The main point made has been about the disabled housewife and the effect which her disablement may have not only on herself but on the whole family. I will not spend any time on this at present because the point is covered by later Amendments, and since we have been going rather slowly on the Bill, it seems a pity to use the time of the House now when the subject will be discussed again later this evening. I promise that I will deal with the points that have been raised when later Amendments are moved.
The hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) asked about the age of 16. It is only when a person becomes 16 that he or she has a right to become an applicant. This age is mentioned because, it is to be remembered, the school leaving age will be put up to 16. Moreover, a great many young people—more and more each year—are continuing at school


until the age of 16 although the compulsory age limit has not yet been raised to 16.
The hon. Lady gave an example of a low wage-earner with a disabled son and other children. In other instances there is not such great hardship because the vast majority of young people are able to find jobs when they leave school at 15, and the real hardship arises when the father is in full-time employment but is a low wage-earner and has other children. I will deal with this aspect on a later Amendment.
I believe that the Opposition Front Bench, too, are anxious to get on with the Bill. I am willing to stay all night if that is necessary to allow the discussion to take place, but I think that there is anxiety to get on with the Bill and I will deal with these points when the Amendments are debated.

Mr. James Dempsey: Is it not the case that 16 was arbitrarily fixed as the age some years ago under a previous Administration and not because the school leaving age was to be raised to 16? I ask my right hon. Friend to remember that this arbitrary decision has caused much heartburning especially in areas in which there are pockets of unemployment or hard cores of unemployment, so that when the child leaves school at 15 he is denied any allowance in spite of the fact that he is more or less an adult and in spite of the fact that the father is in the low-income group.
Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that because of this economic problem the Lanarkshire education authority was compelled to open a pre-vocational centre to give some training to these 15-16 year olds, who could not find jobs, and a reasonable bursary to tide them over?
I recognise that it is the genuine intention of my right hon. Friend and the Government to increase the school leaving age by 1970, but as the possibility of a serious shortage of teachers might prejudice this intention and raise the question of a possible postponement at that time, will my right hon. Friend later in the Bill consider the possibility of using as a yardstick the statutory school leaving age instead of mentioning any particular age? I have always felt that this would have overcome many problems which I have experienced in my constituency where it

is still not easy for school leavers to find employment.
I ask my right hon. Friend to bear this point in mind. I know that she, too, has had this experience, and I appreciate that she has taken account of it, but I should like her to indicate that it has been borne in mind and that the Government hope that it will be possible to meet the problems of children who leave school at 15 in areas where it is difficult to find employment and who become wholly dependent on a father who is in the low-wage-earner group.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5.—(DETERMINATION OF RIGHT TO AND AMOUNT OF BENEFIT.)

Mr. Dean: I beg to move, in page 3, line 39, to leave out "Part I" and insert "Parts II and III".
I shall move the Amendment briefly. It concerns an important but comparatively narrow point in relation to the Amendments which we have discussed and to the many important Amendments which are to follow. The intention of the Amendment is simply to give the Government of the day power to increase disregards by regulation. I view with some suspicion, as no doubt do all hon. Members, any proposals to give any Government more power, particularly more power to change legislation by regulation. We all know how difficult it is to get adequate discussion of regulations and therefore an adequate check on the Executive when they bring forward changes in the law in this way.
But in this case I can see no good reason to distinguish between the scale rates and the disregards. The law continues the present position under the National Assistance Act whereby the scale rates may be increased by regulation, whereas new legislation is required for changes in the disregards.
Even if there may have been a good reason for this when the Act was introduced, I see no good reason for continuing this distinction. It is true that in the past it has been the practice to increase the scale rates more frequently than the disregards. This is right and proper, although I wonder whether in the past


the disregards have been increased often enough in relation to the scale rates. However that may be, for many years the concept of relative poverty has been accepted by both sides of the Committee—the idea that the safety net provided for the various sections of the community should be what is called dynamic and not static. Previous Conservative administrations have accepted this principle and have carried it out on many occasions when they have increased National Assistance rates substantially more than would be required merely for cost-of-living purposes. The present Government have done the same.
But this concept of relative poverty involves not only inadequate cash; it also involves a decline in the value of savings. the fruit of past thrift, and some of the hardest cases of relative poverty fall within this second category where the value of savings and an accustomed standard of living have been eroded through inflation.
We have already welcomed the proposals in respect of the disregards, and I do not suggest that the disregards should be increased on every occasion when the scale rates are increased. But I hope that the Government agree that they should at any rate be looked at on each occasion to see whether they should be increased when the scale rates are increased. If this principle is accepted, then it seems to me only right, reasonable and practicable, that the same machinery in putting the proposals before Parliament should apply to the disregards as to the scale rates.

3.15 p.m.

Mr. Braine: Should I be in order, Sir Beresford, in expressing the pleasure of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, and particularly of this side of the Committee, at your occupying the Chair? I have not seen you in the Chair before. I am sure that all hon. Members join me in expressing our pleasure.
On Second Reading and again today the Minister has argued that the Bill will make for greater flexibility in meeting need, especially among the elderly, and will do so in a way which preserves dignity and self-respect. I agree. But in some respects opportunities exist to make the Bill truly effective in overcoming the pockets of poverty and

deprivation which exist. It is interesting to note that the present National Assistance Board Regulations allow for disregards of the kind set out in Part III. The Board, through the discretion of its officers, may allow additional disregards which are not specifically set out in the Regulations.
For example, under the existing regulations the first 15s. of superannuation payments must be disregarded, but under the general power conferred by Regulation 3 of the 1948 Regulations, the National Assistance Board also disregards the first 15s. of any payment from relatives or charitable organisations. The officers of the Board tell me—and they have done this for many years—that they feel that it is reasonable that the recipient should benefit from a charitable source in the same way as he may from a superannuation payment. I am sure that this is in line with the humane and sensible and flexible approach which, within the scope of the Regulations, the Board has practised for a long time.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) said, poverty is a relative term and very difficult to define. I think that I am right in saying that it has never been defined in statutory form. Most people would agree that minimum standards should be geared to the current standard of living and that it is morally wrong and wasteful in what is generally regarded as an affluent society to allow too large a gap to grow between those who, for one reason or another, have a struggle to exist and a great mass of the population.
For this reason and bearing in mind the cogent arguments of my hon. Friend, I would have thought that there was a strong case for introducing greater flexibility in the application of Part III of Schedule 2. There should be greater flexibility in respect of disregards given on capital and earnings and also certain payments. It is possible that within a few years it may be thought expedient by the Government of the day to alter the disregards in respect of certain payments to, say, 50s., especially if some step is taken, as I hope it will be, if not now, in the relatively near future, to provide a realistic constant attendance allowance for all categories of the severely disabled.
I support the Amendment, because I think that it would enable the Minister to make suitable regulations much more quickly than if he had to go through the tedious business of amending the main Act. This is a matter of some principle. It will not cost the Government anything, but it is an issue which could be conceded and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be generally sympathetic.

Mr. van Straubenzee: The matter has been so persuasively argued and as we are all anxious to make progress I need not take time. I hope that the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary is on the Bench while his right hon. Friend is having a well-earned breather means that she has left him with power of attorney to accept the Amendment. I am sure that that is the reason, because he is well known to be a highly competent Parliamentary Secretary who is well able to put this course very pleasantly to the Committee.
Quite plainly, to accept the Amendment would cost the Government nothing at present and need not ever so cost the Government anything. The Parliamentary Secretary is not being asked to spend any money tonight. The second thing is that we all know on both sides of the Committee of the appalling difficulties of finding Parliamentary time for amendments to legislation. We all know that, whatever changes are made in our procedures, that may well always be the case.
Here is an example of a very simple Amendment which just gives extra flexibility to future Ministers of Pensions and National Insurance. Obviously, the Parliamentary Secretary does not have much interest in future Ministers of Pensions and National Insurance, but we on this side of the Committee have considerable interest in future Ministers. We would like to give the Parliamentary Secretary the necessary flexibility to be able to operate Part III, calculation of resources. I think that it is incumbent upon him—and he always argues every case persuasively and carefully—to show why if, as I believe him to be, he is right to take these powers for Part II, the calculation of requirements, he does not require the same powers for the calculation of resources.
I should have thought that it was one of the features of a growingly affluent society that it was possible progressively and deliberately to increase the disregards for payments made as of right and that it would be enormous benefit to any Government to have this flexibility and freedom. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will listen carefully to the arguments put before him.

Miss Quennell: The Amendment has been debated shortly but extraordinarily persuasively and I can hardly believe that the Parliamentary Secretary will brush aside the gift offered to him across the Table from these benches. It must in the nature of things be of enormous help to any future Ministry of Social Security to have a power which will enable it to operate quickly, effectively and immediately instead of as at present having to return to the House of Commons when an alteration in the disregards is contemplated.
The Committee is offering the Ministry the chance of that sort of flexible power to alter the allowance for disregards in line with the standard of living which the country enjoys, and to do so quickly and flexibly and without having to return to the House, when Parliamentary time is always so short and in such demand, in order to make alterations which could make all the difference to people living on incomes probably too low for them to enjoy those amenities which have become common throughout our society.
I therefore hope that I can see a twinkle in the eye of the Parliamentary Secretary and that he sees the prospect of a delicious power being handed to him from these benches for the use of his Ministry of Social Security for the not too long future.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Norman Pentland): I can assure the hon. Lady the Member for Petersfield (Miss Quennell) that I am renowned, particularly among the ladies, for having a twinkle in my eye at all times, not only in the House of Commons.
Perhaps I can add my congratulations to those already extended to you, Sir Beresford, by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine). I hope that you will have a long life in the Chair,


although, of course, coming from the Opposition benches.
I can assure hon. Members that the power to vary by regulation the rules about income requirements in Part II of the Schedule has been provided in Clause 5(2) for very good reasons which do not apply to Part III. The hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) may or may not be surprised when I tell him that the Government feel bound to resist the Amendment.
The non-contributory scheme provides benefits for people with few or limited other resources, and the income requirements in Part II set the minimum standard of provision under the social security scheme. The Government must be able to take action without delay when the need arises to maintain that minimum standard. The simple example is when there are rising prices. The Government would not be able to do this if we had to go through the full legislative process to improve the value of the income requirements, or to deal especially with the income requirements of any particular category of claimants. Clause 5(2) enables the Government to act effectively in these matters while at the same time still preserving, under the Affirmative Resolution procedure, Parliament's right to approve or disapprove of the Government's proposals.
None of these considerations applies to the rules for calculating resources, that is, the disregards set out in Part III. Therefore, there cannot be the same urgency about amending them, because, by definition, the people who have disregards already have a higher standard of living than is prescribed by the income requirements.
However, apart from this there are positive grounds for not altering the disregards in any way other than by coming to Parliament with a full scheme of disregards set out in the form of definite proposals for legislation which can he carefully considered. The income requirements apply the same standards to all those who are in the same circumstances—householders get the same, so do non-householders, so do married couples and so do children. There can be no question of inequitable treatment as between one person and another in these groups.
Disregards work the other way. They give preferential treatment to those who have certain kinds of resources. We have found this to be a source of complaint of inequity in National Assistance disregards. For instance, we have the complaint from many people about the preference given to War Savings as against co-operative society dividends. We are putting that right in the Bill. It is recognised on both sides of the Committee that some preferential treatment can be justified in the matter of disregards, up to a point, and the Bill provides what we believe to be the best solution to this difficult and complicated problem. These preferences for some people must mean that less is available for others, and the disregards are not something which we should change in a hurry or without the fullest consideration of what is involved.
The Amendment follows the precedent of the National Assistance Act, 1959, which gave power to increase National Assistance disregards by Order. It would give a much wider power than that given by the 1959 Act, which simply allowed the amounts of existing disregards to be increased by regulation, whereas the Amendment would give power to vary the nature of the disregards.

8.30 p.m.

The Government's view is that the better precedent is that of 1948 which was the last occasion when Parliament considered National Assistance disregards as a whole. On that occasion National Assistance disregards were incorporated in the Statute with no power to increase them. The fact that the Conservative Government, having taken power to increase the disregards by regulation—I think the hon. Member for Somerset., North (Mr. Dean) recognised this in opening the debate—only once, in 1959, operated this power, indicated to us that they recognised also the force of the argument that it is not a good thing to make frequent changes in the system of disregards.

Experience has shown that when changes in the disregards are due it is necessary to undertake a considered revision of the whole, as we have done on this occasion, for the first time since 1948, balancing, on the one hand, claims to preferential treatment of persons with certain kinds of resources against, on the


other hand, the case in equity for treating all claimants alike, under a scheme designed to assure all those eligible of a guaranteed income.

The Government cannot accept that any future amendment of a kind which could be done by regulation would he likely to maintain the balance of an equitable system of disregards. It is for that reason mainly that I must ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Dean: May I, first, apologise to you, Sir Beresford, for not congratulating you on assuming the Chair? I am bound to say that you were presiding over us with such an air of authority and distinction that I assumed that you had been doing it for many years. I should like to add my congratulations to those of other hon. Members.
I shall be extremely brief. I am very disappointed with the reply which the Parliamentary Secretary has given. I think it must be very rare for Ministers to get up at that Box and refuse powers which the other side of the Committee is only too ready to give them.
In this debate my hon. Friends, three of them, have put forward very persuasive arguments. They have all emphasised the need for flexibility in this matter. It seemed to me that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary in his reply relied almost entirely on what one may call Civil Service arguments, and he has really missed an opportunity, now that a new system is being introduced—that is what the Government have told us—to see whether it would be very much better to put these two, both the scales and the disregards, on the same basis as far as increases are concerned.
The hon. Gentleman referred back to the original National Assistance Act, 1948. It is astonishing how often we get this. With one breath we are told, "This is an entirely new system which is being introduced and a great step forward and a great reform in our arrangements for those who are most needy". Yet in the next breath we are told, "Sound precedents were established in 1948 and we ought to continue with them". The Government really cannot have it both ways. No full arguments were put forward on that, and the Minis-

ter has missed an opportunity on this occasion to put both aspects, both very important aspects, of the needs of the elderly on all fours.
I did not suggest, nor did my hon. Friends, that on every occasion when the scale rates are increased disregards should be increased also. All we were suggesting was that they should be looked at on each occasion, now that we have firmly accepted the concept of relative poverty, involving as it does not only inadequate cash but decline in savings and the money which savings produce, in days of inflation. With those words of disappointment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Beresford Craddock): I do not know whether I shall be in order in so doing, but before I put the Question may I thank hon. Members on both sides for all their kind remarks. I am bound to say that I find them rather embarrassing.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Dean: Before we leave this important Clause I should like to raise just one point. This Clause deals with determination of right to and the amount of benefit, and the point I wish to raise relates in particular to the assurance which we were given by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary during Second Reading, that no one under the scheme would be worse off. He was quite specific when my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Miss Pike) interrupted his speech and asked for an absolute clarification. The hon. Gentleman replied:
I assure the hon. Lady that no one under this scheme will be worse off—no one at all."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th May, 1966; Vol. 729, c. 414.]
We accept that assurance and are glad of it, but there are certain aspects which are a little puzzling and which perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will be good enough to explain. In particular, I wonder how the determination of right to and the amount of benefit will be assessed in the case of those who are getting substantial discretionary additions at the moment.
In the Bill, we have an increase in the scale rates of 5s. single and 7s. 6d.


married. We have the automatic 9s. in Place of a discretionary addition which is now averaging about 10s. That will mean that a married couple with a discretionary addition of 16s. 6d. will, as I understand it, be no better off than under the present arrangements.
According to the latest figures which we have, in Appendix 21 of the 1964 Report of the National Assistance Board, it is clear that there are about 75,000 people in that category who are getting discretionary additions of 17s. 6d. or more. So, presumably, special arrangements will be required to ensure that these people are not worse off. From the same table, I see that there are no fewer than 42,000 retirement pensioners who get discretionary additions of over £1.
On the face of it, unless special arrangements are made, a substantial number of people, most of them retirement pensioners, will get less under the new arrangements than they get at present.
There are also the old-age pensioners under the Old Age Pensioners Act. There are about 14,000 of them who are not getting National Assistance at the moment. As I say, we accept the assurance which the Parliamentary Secretary has given, but it would be helpful if we could know how the arrangements are to be made to meet these cases.
In what is a rather complicated Bill I do not see a specific mention of the point, and I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman can say whether the assurance that he gave during Second Reading is written into the Bill.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: It is only my fear of adding to your embarrassment, Sir Beresford, that prevents me adding to the congratulations.
I have one specific point to make on the Clause. However, before I come to it, I want to add one short word of regret that, despite the very strong arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean), the Parliamentary Secretary was not able to accept his suggestion. Instead, he put forward what I regarded, not without some personal experience, as rather typical Treasury arguments in refuting the case put forward by my hon. Friends. After all, with inflation running at 5 per

cent. per year, a discretionary addition of 40s. loses a quarter of its value in the course of one Parliament. That seems to be a fairly urgent reason for trying to maintain the balance of the equity which presumably Parliament intends if it passes the Bill.
I find it extremely hard that, after all that we have heard about the inequities of a means test and how monstrous it was of the Tory Party to try to deal with poverty simply by increasing National Assistance rates, we now have a chance to bring in not only a new version or National Assistance, turning it into supplementary pensions and allowances with requirements varied by regulation, but a new version of a means test; that new version, which is still the old means test, becoming progressively more harsh during an inflationary period.
The point on which I should like a reassurance from the Minister or from the Parliamentary Secretary arises out of a comparison of the wording of subsection (2) of this Clause with that of paragraph 4 of Schedule 2. Subsection (2) says:
Regulations under this section may vary the provisions of Part II"—
that is to say, the requirements—
of the said Schedule 2, but not so as to reduce any amount specified therein.
The intention is obviously to allow the Minister to increase the benefits by increasing the level of requirements, and presumably also to prevent the Treasury, without legislation from Parliament, forcing the Minister to decrease benefits when things get difficult. But the intention appears to be frustrated by Part I of Schedule 2, paragraph 4, and I say "appears", because I may be wrong in my reading of it, and it is simply an assurance that I want from the hon. Gentleman.
Part II of Schedule 2 deals with the calculation of requirements. Part III of Schedule 2 deals with the calculation of disregards. Part I really governs the relationship between the two, the method which it is proper to use in bringing the two together to determine the actual sums paid, and it also governs the more general conditions which shall be applied.
In dealing with exceptional circumstances, paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 2—


and I hope that I am not out of order in referring to this, because it is relevant to this Clause—says that the benefit may be awarded and can in fact be higher, and sub-paragraph (1,b) says that the supplementary allowance—not the supplementary pension—can in certain circumstances be reduced or withheld. Paragraph 4(2) specifically excludes this last provision from the qualifications which the rest of the sub-paragraph proposes.
I could return to this later when we deal with the Schedule and refer to the wording of this paragraph and the contrast between the supplementary allowances in paragraph 4(1,b) and the wording used in paragraph 4(1,a) and what the precise meaning of that is, and I think that the Committee will probably understand if the Minister prefers to deal with this point at that stage, but we shall want a firm reassurance that it is not possible—not that it is not the intention, but that it is not possible—to use this paragraph to frustrate the intention which Parliament has in passing this Clause; and that the exceptional circumstances in paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 can be applied only to individuals and cannot refer to specific groups of people, or indeed to specific circumstances, to the economic circumstances of the day.
If the Minister can reassure on that point, we on this side of the Committee will support the Clause, with regret that the Government have seen fit to take so rigid a line over the means test and have rejected our suggestion for facilitating keeping the test of means, as well as the test of needs, in line with the rising cost of living.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Pentland: I can immediately give the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) the assurances that he wants. Perhaps it would be best for me to say, first, that Clause 5 enables the Minister, by Regulations which are subject to the affirmative Resolution procedure, to vary the provisions of Part II of Schedule 2. Part II of this Schedule sets out the rules which will enable the Commission to determine itself the level of income requirements in each individual case, covering the rates of requirements themselves, the long term addition and rent.
The Minister will be given power by the Bill to vary these rules but not to decrease any of the amounts specified. This was what concerned the hon. Gentleman. In other words, the Minister can prescribe higher levels of requirements or different levels for new categories, but cannot reduce any of the rates—

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Am I to understand from that that where the Minister cannot, the Commission can, vary the level and that she is empowered under Paragraph 4 to vary the level of requirement. or is that not so?

The Temporary Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member but we cannot go into the details of the Schedule at this juncture.

Mr. Pentland: Of course, Sir Beresford, I accept your Ruling.
The main thing which needs to be made clear—this was the concern of the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) and, I am sure, of the hon. Member for Farnham—is that I reaffirm my categorical assurance on Second Reading that no one will be worse off under the Bill.

Mr. Braine: Would the Parliamentary Secretary go a little further? He will recall that the point I made—it may not have been valid—was that the National Assistance Board has been in the habit of allowing certain disregards which are not specifically set out, using their general powers under Regulation 3 of the 1948 Regulations. This is an indication, I think, of the obvious desire of the Board to stretch its powers in certain cases as widely as possible. I mentioned a case where the Board allowed—although this was not laid down in Regulations—15s. of any payment from a charitable or family source. This was not laid down. All I am asking is whether the Commission will have the same flexibility under the new arrangements as the National Assistance Board had in this case.

Mr. Pentland: Yes, of course.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I am sorry to come back to this point, but I am still anxious to learn whether, if the Commission has this power of flexibility, it has greater powers by reason of the wording of the Schedule than the Minister


herself—I do not suggest that anyone has any intention of so doing—to vary the Regulations downwards. I accept that, under the Clause, the Minister has not this power, but it seems to me that in withholding this power from the Minister we were in danger of overlooking the fact that the Commission might itself have the power which Parliament is specifically not giving to the Minister. As the Commission is part of the Ministry, this would, in some ways, frustrate the will of Parliament as expressed in the Clause.

Mr. Pentland: I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's concern and the interest which he is showing in the new arrangements for dealing with the exceptional heeds and as to how they will be operated by the Commission.
I am informed that this has always been a most important part of the work of the National Assistance Board. Under the Bill, although the long-term addition will deal with special needs in the majority of cases, there will still be an important sphere for the use of discretionary additions by the Commission. However, I do hot think that it would be right for me to go into detail on this matter now.
It will be seen from the general framework of the Bill and from the White Paper, Command 2997, that it will be one of the first duties of the Commission to consider in what ways additional payments should be made to meet special needs. I recognise that the hon. Gentleman is more concerned with the question of a downward adjustment than that of meeting special needs, but as I have said, those at present receiving National Assistance will not be any worse off. Indeed, nobody will be worse off under the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6.—(MEDICAL REQUIREMENTS ETC.)

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Braine: This Clause touches on a matter of considerable importance and principle which require an explanation from the Minister. It would appear that the provision is merely a continuance of the present charges for dental and ophthal-

mic services—spectacles and surgical appliances; boots, supports and elastic hosiery. Presumably, too, it means that such charges do not apply to hospital inpatients, patients in receipt of National Assistance and war pensions in respect of their accepted war disabilities. But what about other persons who are not able to afford the charges?
Under the present arrangements such people may apply to the National Assistance Board for a grant towards these charges. In such cases the Board is empowered to waive its rule of not assisting people who are in full employment. Will this still be the position? I am bound to say—and I say this more in sorrow than in anger—that the Government's attitude to the question of charges is bewildering in the extreme. The provision in the Clause is in complete conflict with what the party opposite has promised the electorate. I recall that as recently as 1961 the present Prime Minister advocated not only the abolition of Health Service charges but of National Health Service contributions as well. Indeed, he wrote in the New Statesman on 24th March, 1961:
The first task in the Health Service will be to recreate the free service established by Aneurin Bevan.…Year by year the case is becoming stronger for taking the Health Service and its contributions under the General Exchequer system".
Indeed, such a proposal was advanced in the Labour Party's manifesto for the 1964 election. In that document the party opposite stated:
Our aim is to restore as rapidly as possible a completely free Health Service.
When one remembers that the Government's National Plan shows that income from National Health Service charges is actually expected to be higher than it is today, can we assume from this Clause that the Government have finally decided to abandon the idea of a completely free Health Service?
The matter is of such importance and relevance that the Committee is entitled to be told the answer. As these charges are to remain—and we must assume that the Government are legislating for some time ahead—the Committee is entitled to know whether the Minister is satisfied that the present system of recovery of charges is working satisfactorily. I ask this for a specific reason. I can remember, when I was at the Ministry of


Health and sitting on that side of the House, how critical hon. Members opposite were when they were in opposition. Is the Joint Parliamentary Secretary satisfied that there will be no undue delay or difficulty in regard to refunds to those people whom this Bill is designed to help and who need the various services or appliances which I have mentioned?
There is a further point. I have found, and I imagine that this has been the experience of other hon. Members, that it is not generally known that persons whose income is slightly above National Assistance scales can apply to the National Assistance Board for reimbursement of National Health Service charges—if not in whole, then certainly in part. I put this question to the National Assistance Board officers whom I know and with whom I worked for many years, and they told me that they are astonished that, despite all the publicity which has been given by successive Governments and by the National Assistance Board, this fact is still not widely known. Will this arrangement continue? Despite the provisions laid down in the Clause, will it be possible for people who get the supplementary allowance to receive a quick and full reimbursement of National Health Service charges?
I should also like to know whether the new Minister will arrange to make this more generally known. I am sure from what the right hon. Lady said earlier that this would be her intention, but I am giving her the opportunity to make it absolutely clear.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Harold Davies): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) for raising the point, but I do not want to delay the Committee. Let us get rid of the party piece. We were asked the rhetorical question whether it is our intention to abandon the free Health Service. We have before us today what marks the completion of a further stage of the Government's review of our social services. The Bill will provide a better deal for the poorest people in the community, the old and the sick.
That is what we are dealing with, so what in the name—I must keep in order

—of the Lord has the free Health Service to do with this? It has nothing to do with this Clause. To discuss it is completely out of order, with due respect to you, Sir Beresford. Let us come to the point. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It was necessary to point out the irrelevance of the opening gambit in order for me now to come to the master move at the centre of the board.

Mr. Braine: Mr. Braine rose

Mr. Davies: Let me finish the sentence first, please, and I shall give way, because the hon. Gentleman is always courteous. I wanted to make this point, because it was not fair to introduce that question when the hon. Member had put forward quite important issues that were worthy of answer. Now I shall sit down.

Mr. Braine: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He should not deliver these strictures, because it is quite clear from the provision that for some considerable time to come the Government are requiring these charges to be levied, and I made the point, which I think is valid and which I hope the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will answer, that under the National Plan the Government evidently expect the revenue from such charges to rise. I am sure that under the Labour Government people will not get so sick and incapacitated that many more will require these appliances and services. It follows that the Government have abandoned the idea that charges for these appliances and services can be waived for the whole population.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Davies: With respect, the argument has nothing to do with the case that we are discussing, which is whether the Clause shall stand part of the Bill. The Clause merely refers to medical requirements and to the National Health Service charges. The Clause ensures, first, that benefit is not awarded twice. It is not awarded to meet requirements which may be met without charge by the National Health Service. That is a piece of common sense.
Secondly, provision is made to enable benefit to be paid to meet requirements for which charges still remain under the National Health Service. Irrespective of anything else, hon. Members on both sides of the Committee know that certain


charges remain. We are concerned with he chronic sick, the ill and others in that category. In that case the Bill does not exclude help for surgical, optical or dental requirements from the definitions, or, in other words, from help.
In 1965 the Board made certain grants in respect of assistance for National Health Service charges other than for prescriptions and surgical appliances. In respect of 448,000 pairs of spectacles we paid out £991,000, and for dentures and dental treatment given in 148,000 cases we paid out £563,000. We have already told the Committee that nobody will be worse off.
Subsection (1) describes the appliances and services for which benefit can be granted. I was surprised to hear the references made to conditions under which war pensioners and others are living. The treatment of war pensioners under the Royal Warrant system is such that nobody needs to worry about them. I give that as an answer to the hon. Member's point.

Mr. Braine: I did not mention war pensioners. I did not have them in mind. I had very much in mind those persons who are above National Assistance rates, but only just, and who have the right to claim reimbursement from the National Assistance Board. I want to know whether these people, who are not necessarily eligible for additional benefit under the Bill, will continue to have that right.

Mr. Davies: Yes, they will. There is the same flexibility with the Commission as existed before. We shall be dealing with this question later in a little more detail.
Subsection (2) provides that the amount of benefit paid will be whatever is appropriate. This will be for the Commission to determine, having regard to the claimant's resources and ordinary requirements, and the amount of the charge. Secondly, it may be paid to or on behalf of the person receiving treatment. In other words, it enables payments to be made either to the claimant or direct to the dentist or optician. Neither side of the Committee wishes to deceive itself. It is obvious from the spirit in which these debates have been conducted that both sides wish, within

the limits of available finance, to do the best we can for those covered by the Bill. I have now answered directly the questions put so courteously by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7.—(EXCEPTIONAL REQUIREMENTS.)

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Miss Quennell: I wish to voice my usual protest at the wording of the Clause. This innocuous and harmless Clause consists of only four lines:
Where it appears to the Commission reasonable in all the circumstances they may determine that benefit shall be paid to a person by way of a single payment to meet an exceptional need.
The Clause merely empowers the Commission to hand a person a lump sum in the form of benefit where in all the circumstances this appears to be reasonable to the Commission. In this wide world it is very difficult to find a reasonable man or a reasonable woman. What appears reasonable to me will appear most unreasonable to other people. What the Commission will regard as reasonable will be regarded as most unreasonable by interested parties.
At this point it is appropriate to pay a tribute to the wonderful work done in difficult circumstances by the officers and officials of the National Assistance Board. The work which they did in the performance of their duty was often regarded as unreasonable by many of our constituents. The servants of the Board carried out their duties with tact, discretion, skill, care, humanity and kindness.
The Commission's power under the Clause will become widely known. Many people will not seek to take advantage of it, but there will be many others who will. We are not all angels. Many people will learn that the Commission has the power to hand over a lump sum. A lump sum is a most attractive and desirable thing to acquire. The Commission, in pursuance of its duty, will many times have to refuse reasonable applications and will thus appear in a


poor light to applicants and will attach to itself much of the approbrium with which the National Assistance Board was regarded.
As a member of the lowest form of legal life—an unpaid, acting justice of the peace—I am confronted all too often with the word "reasonable" in legislation. This word bedevils our efforts all too often. I should like to see the word excluded from all Bills.

Mr. Harold Davies: On behalf of the Government and of the Opposition, I thank the hon. Lady for the courteous and generous way in which she expressed a tribute to those who have worked with the National Assistance Board, irrespective of what Government might have been in power. All of us with experience in our constituencies for many years know how difficult the task of the Board's officers is and what a good job of work they do.
On many occasions over the years I have joined the hon. Lady in Committee upstairs in rolling the beautiful euphemistic word "reasonable" on the tip of my tongue. The hon. Lady spoke about the distribution of lump sums. The Clause merely enables the Commission to make a lump sum payment to meet an exceptional need when it considers that it is justified. It is a different thing from the Determination of Needs Regulations. We have all been glad of the opportunity to inform a constituent who has been in trouble that there are occasions when a single exceptional payment can be made to meet an emergency. This power is here and it will be used as generously and wisely as it was in the past. With that explanation, I hope the hon. Lady will be satisfied.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8.—(EXCLUSION OF PERSONS IN FULL-TIME EMPLOYMENT.)

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I beg to move, in page 4, line 16, after "benefit", to insert:
other than the additional family allowance".

The Temporary Chairman: It has been proposed, if the Committee agrees, that

with this Amendment we take the proposed new Clause, entitled "Low-wage earning family" and the Amendment to Schedule 2, page 22, line 3, at end-insert:
but for this purpose no account shall be taken of any additional family allowance payable under this Act
both in the name of the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan).

Mr. Macmillan: The purpose of the Amendment which I am moving, together with the consequential Amendment to Schedule 2, is to validate the new Clause standing in my name relating to the low-wage-earning family. It reads:
A person engaged in remunerative full-time work, whose resources are insufficient to meet his requirements as calculated under Part II of Schedule 2 to this Act, shall be entitled to an additional family allowance in accordance with a scale of requirements which the Minister will prescribe by regulations made under this Act.
The purpose of the new Clause and of the Amendments is twofold. First, it is to deal, so far as supplementary allowances are concerned, simultaneously with the wage stop problem and with the low-wage-earning large family. Its second purpose is to do so in a way which avoids the delay inherent in the survey to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred on the Second Reading and to which the Minister referred today—the delay which the exigencies of the Parliamentary timetable, I fear, will impose, no matter with what dispatch the actual survey itself is conducted, and yet, in avoiding this delay, in no way to limit the Government's freedom of action when the survey is completed.
For this reason we did not seek to write into the wording of these Amendments and of the new Clause any attempt to provide a comprehensive solution in the Bill to the problems of the low wage-earning family, even if this were the appropriate Bill into which to put it. It is for this reason, too, that we did not seek to lay down what, in our view, was the appropriate scale of assistance. Like the Parliamentary Secretary, the right hon. Lady and others who have spoken on both sides of the Committee, I think that it is more efficient to act on facts rather than on hypotheses.
I also believe that another fact has been established to demonstrate now the


need for immediate action and that the method of taking such action is available through the medium of regulations setting down requirements which this Bill provides in Clause 5. We have in the Bill both the opportunity for immediate action to meet a proven social need and the chance to provide the further more detailed and more efficient action when the surveys and inquiries set in train by the Government have a chance to be considered and digested, and proposals are made therefrom.
It is important to remember that those who are in need are looking to the Bill as a means of help. Those whom the Parliamentary Secretary referred to as the poorest in the country will be very disappointed with the party opposite if this Government are allowed to miss the opportunity provided by the Bill to help them.

9.15 p.m.

Let us look, first, at the facts. I do not know, and I cannot pretend to guess at, what the cost of these Amendments and this new Clause would be. What is more, I do not believe that it is relevant because we are only seeking to relieve those families who by definition are living below the subsistence level. If the position is really so difficult the Treasury can insist and the Minister can ensure, that the regulations are limited so that they are brought up only to the level of the supplementary allowance on the old National Assistance Board scales. Later, when the inquiries are completed, any further problems of the large families or low-wage earners can be dealt with.

In this context, I had rather understood from what had been said that the Government have accepted that cost was irrelevant. It was certainly accepted in various election manifestoes and documentations when the income guarantee was specifically exempted from being qualified by economic progress. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary, winding up the Second Reading debate, said:
Before I proceed further I should perhaps say a few words about the relationship of these proposals to our public expenditure programme. The National Plan allocated a certain sum to provide real improvements, other than increases to make up for loss of value due to rising prices, in benefits and assistance up to 1970. That part of the cost of

the present proposals which represents a real improvement in standards will be contained within the allocation in the Plan. We are convinced that the proposals now put before the House to improve the lot of the poorest of our people must have a prior claim on this allocation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 24th May, 1966; Vol. 728. c. 411.]
It is not quite the sweeping exception that the election manifestoes produced. I hope that I did not, but I think that I did detect one or two remarks today about containing the assistance which this Bill is giving to meet the limitations of costs. I hope that it is not in any way going to apply to relieving those whom the Parliamentary Secretary has called the poorest in the land, and especially as far as this Amendment is concerned, the large families with very low incomes.

There are about 9 per cent. of all households with three or more children under 16. It is, unfortunately, true that the relatively lower wage earners, unskilled and semi-skilled, more than other sections of our population, tend to have rather larger families. These are about 1 million families in all, of whom the Minister of Labour has estimated between 150,000 and 200,000 are living below National Assistance Board scales. That was on 26th July, 1965, and I think that the right hon. Lady has later figures.

There is no need for me to emphasise to the Committee the plight of these people. Average earnings are something like £18 a week, and even with family allowance, these average earnings, with four children and high rents impose very strict limitations. There can be only the most essential spending to put it at its very lowest. About half the working population is earning less than £18 a week and there are many people whose jobs do not enable them to bring home more than £10 to £12 a week.

Not all of them have other "perks", such as cheap rents, as well. A big family tends to pay a high rent. I hope that there is no need to emphasise the urgency and importance of this problem. I hope that there is no lack of knowledge that a significant number of large families are living below and there are even more living just above, subsistence level.

We accept that our proposal leaves out of account quite a part of the problem. We accept that when the inquiry is


complete there may well be a need to do more or even to change the manner in which the Minister acts under the regulations which she prescribes. But we are suggesting the minimum which should be applied now to all. In a rapidly changing society the pattern of help and benefit which will develop as the years go by is bound to change. I do not see any major disadvantage in helping people now even if, whenever the right hon. Lady can get Parliamentary time, her present help may be subsumed in a wider and more comprehensive Measure later. This is why we have followed Clause 5 in tabling the new Clause.

On Second Reading, the Parliamentary Secretary assured us that he recognised that this was a major social problem and that the Government were busy collecting information. But the Government have been promising action for a very long time. In every speech and broadcast they have implied that this Measure, among others, would take the sort of action which we are asking them to take now. It was implied that solutions to these problems were already in the pipeline. I will not risk incurring the Minister's displeasure by referring to the long delay in dealing with this problem, but I would refer to the discrepancy in this and other matters between the Government's words and actions. There is an urgency in their criticism of the Conservative record. There were assurances in successive election campaigns that this record would be rapidly improved. We had assurances of immediate action which it would be possible to take under the Bill, but the Government have notably failed to grasp the opportunity to take it.

As has been said several times, there is very little in the Bill which is new. The reason for this, given by the Minister, is that the Government must wait until they know more before taking action and until the action which they take has been made clear by its inquiries. They deny the value of any first aid. We remember the scorn which right hon. and hon. Members opposite poured on the Conservative Government when they waited to ascertain the facts. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley) was very gentle with the right hon. Lady. I know that her inquiry will be valuable.

But why wait? All that we are suggesting is that low-wage earners who, because of their large families, cannot earn enough to support themselves and their families at a level which Parliament has decided is a subsistence level should be brought up to the subsistence level proposed in the Bill.

I know that this is not enough, but I suggest that the Government must act. We have suggested a line of action. The Minister should accept now the need to bring these families to a higher level. She should accept that the size of the family is a factor and should, indeed, accept our proposal. The right hon. Lady could vary the regulations later. Meanwhile, she would have relieved hardship.

To reject the Amendment and the new Clause out of hand would be to reject a provision which social justice demands. If it comes to a Division—which I hope it will not, because I hope that the right hon. Lady will accept the Amendment and the new Clause to vote against the new Clause would be to vote for continuing to keep some families below subsistence level, even though right hon. and hon. Members opposite have said that the new Ministry of Social Security will do more, will he bold and imaginative and will meet people's needs.

Some needs will be met, but unless the Amendment and the new Clause are accepted the needs of the poorest will still not be dealt with. In the Government's eyes, the treatment of need may be equal, but in rejecting the new Clause they would be making it clear that some are more equal than others.

Mrs. Lena Jeger: There must indeed be rejoicing in heaven tonight over the sinners who have repenteth; but the repentance is none the less welcome for its tardiness. I should be the last to deprecate the concern of the Committee for the low-income family, which presents one of the most intractable social problems of our time. I hope, however, that the Committee will not accept these Amendments and will recall rather the assurances of my right hon. Friend about the investigations which are being carried out into this complicated question.
Family allowances were accepted only after a long campaign of education, in


which the name of Eleanor Rathbone comes quickly to mind. When family allowances were adopted, the sum of 5s. for a child which was agreed upon seemed small enough, but in purchasing power it was worth more than the family allowances which are available today. That is another reason why I feel that the whole question of family allowances needs to be gone into separately from the Bill.
I would strongly resist any attempt to divide families into two, into the poor extra-family-allowance families and those which are above the line. It seems to me to be basic to Tory thought on improving the social services to divide the country according to means in the way that happened under the old panel system, when a person who earned more than a certain figure could not be on the panel. Such a suggestion could also have a serious effect upon claims for increased wages. I can imagine many employers using the availability of this kind of extra family allowance as a reason for holding down wage claims I am sure that the Committee would not want this to happen. Having said that rather destructively, I would not want it to be thought that any of us on this side are unaware of or insensitive to the problem.

9.30 p.m.

There is another aspect of family allowances to which the hon. Member did not refer, and which benefits thousands of people in the family allowances which Income Tax payers receive in respect of their children. We subsidise Income Tax payers to about £100 million a year whereas we spend only £150 million a year at present on family allowances. If we are to tackle the problem we must do something quite drastic—completely abolish Income Tax allowances for children and give the increased family allowances right across the board, recouping in taxation from the better-off. I am sure that that is the more ethical way of dealing with this kind of social problem than saying to certain families, "You are just poor enough to get a little extra dole whereas the next-door family is just a few shillings better off and cannot have it."

This Amendment would not achieve the abject which the hon. Member seems to have in mind. I agree with him, as I

know my right hon Friend does, about the urgency of the problem. Beveridge has been mentioned several times in the debate, and I will conclude by recalling a remark of his soon after his Report was published. He said:
It is unreasonable to seek to guarantee an income sufficient for subsistence while earnings are interrupted by unemployment or disability without ensuring sufficient income during earning.

That is the problem which he left to us and to which we have not found an answer. The Amendment will not help us find that answer.

Mr. Philip Holland: I find it a little difficult to follow the argument of the hon. Lady the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger), who suggests that we must not try to help the poorest people in case that splits the community. The proposal made was that we should try to give supplementary allowances to those who are in the greatest need rather than to give a flat rate across the board which would go to the wealthiest, too. I do not understand how that would split the community.

Mrs. Jeger: If the hon. Member cannot understand how dividing families along a street into two categories would create a split, then he does not live near enough to ordinary people to understand how they feel.

Mr. Holland: I should like to set the Amendment in its context in the Clause and to support what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) about the urgency of the matter. Without amendment the Clause states clearly that supplementary benefits should not be paid to a man in full-time employment, and in general this principle is absolutely right and we all agree with it. If a man is capable of earning enough to support his wife and family, he should do so and retain his independence. Indeed, he should be encouraged to do so. This is the general trend of thinking in our social security system and has been the trend with both Governments.
But there are special cases which must be exceptions to the rule. The Clause recognises one of them—the man who suffers loss of earning power through disability. That is in subsection (3). It


recognises, too, in subsection (4), that there should be exceptions in the case of subsidising appliances.
But the Clause could do a lot, and does nothing, in the large area of hardship which is known to exist, and here lies what we regard in putting forward the Amendment as a sin of omission of the Clause. As my hon. Friend made clear, we feel that exceptions to the general rule should be made for the low-wage earner with the large family whose total earned income, including family allowances, falls below the level of income laid down by the National Assistance Board scale, which is designed to keep a family above the subsistence borderline. According to figures given by the right hon. Lady on Second Reading, which were mentioned in the debate on Clause 1, there are between 200,000 and 300,000 families where the wage earner's earned income is below the current amount under the National Assistance Board's scale.
May I refer to the Answer given on 26th July by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour which has also been mentioned earlier? It was stated that the average number of children is slightly more than three per family. This means that about 650,000 children are being brought up in this area of poverty under conditions which Parliament, through the medium of the National Assistance Board, regards as being below subsistence level. There are about 650,000 children in this area of poverty who are undernourished and underprivileged. This is a great breeding ground for vice, misery, delinquency and degradation which the Bill—and Clause 8, which we seek to amend, is the relevant Clause—could do something about, but, in fact, does nothing about.
The difference between the income of the low wage earner with the large family and the scale rate of National Assistance income, which is the best guide we have as a generally recognised standard of subsistence, can be quite substantial. In the memorandum presented last December to the Prime Minister by the Child Poverty Action Group we were given the example of a married couple with six young children, three below the age of 5 and three between 5 and 11 years of age, with a net wage

of £10 a week, plus family allowances, paying a rent of £2 10s. a week. The income of this family works out at about £3 16s. a week less than the total allowed in the National Assistance Board's scale.
With children from 5 years of age right through the range, the income according to that memorandum would be £5 9s. a week below what is regarded as the subsistence level by the National Assistance Board. If such a man had only three children between the ages of 3 and 12 and a net wage of £12 a week plus family allowances, and a rent of £2 10s. a week, his family's income would still be £2 14s. 2d. a week less than the National Assistance Board scale.
These differences are quite substantial. The wife of this man with a family of three children, after paying the rent and paying for fuel and light, would, even if she were lucky, have £6 a week less with which to feed and clothe a family of five and replace household equipment and then do little more than dream about family holidays.
The Committee is aware of the argument that some of the increase in the number of families living below the level of income allowed within National Assistance scales is due to the progressive increase in those scales during the last 15 years—nine increases since 1951 including that of last year—raising their value by about the same amount as the increase in male industrial earnings during the same period.
But although this may account for the increase in the numbers below the present level, surely the Committee will agree that in a society in which incomes are steadily rising and standards are, therefore, constantly improving, it is right and proper that we should also be raising the minimum standard of what we regard as subsistence level, because, as was said earlier, poverty is relative.
As a general principle, non-contributory benefits, as they are now becoming known, follow the guide lines of the Beveridge system for the payment of benefit against interruption or loss of earning power, so that benefits cannot be paid to a man in full employment. This is probably the basic rule behind the regulation not to pay benefits to men in full employment, which is what Clause 8 says.
On this side of the Committee, we agree that it is a right and proper principle, so long as we base our social security on Beveridge, but there are plenty of precedents for helping the children of families in financial straits without breaching the Beveridge principle. Family allowances are paid irrespective of earnings and whether or not the breadwinner is in employment. There is the special help, which we all know about and appreciate, which is given to the children of the widowed mother whether or not she is in employment, and, to mention a third, there is the special children's allowance for the children of deserted and divorced wives.
These do not breach the Beveridge principle, but they give assistance to families through the children's allowances or supplements. Why not make some supplementary benefit available to be added to the family allowance paid to the low wage earner with the large family even though he may be in full employment?
As it stands without the Amendment, the Clause misses a great opportunity to help the low-wage earner with the large family who is undoubtedly in need and, what is more important, to help the children who are undoubtedly in need, because without the Amendment the Clause seems to shut firmly the door against any attempt to alleviate within the Bill an area of need which certainly exists and which all hon. Members know to exist from their own constituency experiences.
Of course, I accept that the right hon. Lady is anxious to do something about the problem and I therefore ask her just as a possibility whether it is envisaged that regulations might be laid under subsection (2) postponing indefinitely the application of subsection (1) to persons of large families becoming engaged in full-time occupations from which the remuneration is not adequate to maintain their families above recognised standards of subsistence. I am not sure whether that would be possible, but I would like to know whether it is and, if so, whether there is any intention of using the subsection in that way.
I am sure that the right hon. Lady knows that none of us doubts her sincerity or desire to do something about this problem or her awareness of it, but

we want to try to persuade her to treat it as a matter of great urgency, and one way of giving some help quickly would be to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Pardoe: The hon. Lady the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger) said that there was joy in Heaven that sinners had repented on this side of the Committee. I am glad that she thinks heaven is even looking at this side of the Committee. But although sitting on this side of the Committee, I do not count myself a sinner or repenter, because the Liberal line on this issue has been clear for a very long time. We support the Amendment, not in a party political sense, but primarily because this is very much a regional problem. It is a regional problem because low income families are concentrated in certain regions, and I want to draw attention to the problem in the regions.
In Cornwall we have a very low average income and there are many families whose total disposable income is below the scales laid down in the Bill. I have a great deal of sympathy with the seamen's case, but when we in Cornwall hear that the seamen are getting only £14 a week or so, admittedly for many hours over the 40-hour week, we do not raise our hands in horror, as people in the South-East of England do, because it is extremely difficult to find anybody in Cornwall earning that amount of money for a 56, or a 60, or even a 70-hour week. There are many people in Cornwall living well below the minimum levels laid down in this Bill.
I said on the Second Reading that in one large rural district in my constituency 70 per cent. of the ratepayers were eligible for rate relief, thus indicating the extent of the problem. When benefits in a Bill such as this are very close to, or in excess of, what can be earned in full-time employment, there is something very wrong.
Many people write to me saying, "Why should I work when somebody next door is getting more than I am, and for doing nothing at all?" And it is true in Cornwall. It is a Right-wing truism, if you like, elsewhere in the country, but it is very very true in Cornwall. Therefore I hope that the right hon. Lady will think again about this Amendment, because we certainly support it.

9.45 p.m.

Miss Herbison: Again, we have had what I consider an excellent debate. One of the things which has surprised me greatly during Second Reading and in the debates we have had on Amendments and on the Clauses is that we have had excellent non-party speeches from the Opposition back benches. They have been in glaring contrast with the type of speech we have had from the hon. Member on the Opposition Front Bench, the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan), who moved the Amendment. It seemed to me that the Opposition Front Bench seemed to think of this not as a serious Bill trying to bring social justice to many, many thousands of people, but as a vehicle of propaganda for the Opposition.
I am glad that the Liberal Member, the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), who spoke on Second Reading and has spoken twice today, does not treat it like that, and I am glad that a great many back-bench Members of the Opposition are not treating it like that, but have been trying to bring their point of view to the Minister and to the Government and, I hope, to the country.
The hon. Member for Farnham, particularly at the end of his speech, was most indignant because we have not solved all the problems—in less than two years. We became the Government only in October, 1964, and really began government only in November, 1964. We are now only in June, 1966, less than two years afterwards. The hon. Member had synthetic indignation because we have not solved every single problem in the social security field in that short time. How I would love to be able to stand here tonight and say that the problems have all been solved; but there are so many of them which have been left to us. I will not weary the Committee by enumerating the things which we have already done in these few short months and the many problems with which we have already dealt, but I will now deal with this Amendment.
The hon. Member spoke about the family with a high rent. There are many families—yes, even of low-wage earners—who are suffering high rents, not because of anything we have done, but because of the action of the hon. Member's own party when in power. We have

not been sitting back doing nothing for the people on those small incomes. They are the very people, the low-wage earners with families, who from April this year will be benefiting under the provisions of the rent rebate scheme. That, at least, is something which is helping them.
It has been said that we should not reject this Amendment because we might feel we were breaching the Beveridge principle. In these last months we have breached the Beveridge principle time and time again. I do not think it is a sacred principle. From the first week of October this year workers will be getting earnings-related sickness and unemployment benefit, and widows will be getting earnings-related supplement on top of their widows' allowance for 26 weeks. Well, that is something very, very different from Beveridge.
I am not in the least worried about the principles of Beveridge. The Beveridge Report was a wonderful job and all right for its time, but we are in a very different time today, and matters are moving very quickly.
What disturbs me is that one would think that the new movements in our country began only in October 1964. Many of those movements have been going on for a very long time, and I wish that there had not been so many problems left for me to solve as Minister of Pensions and National Insurance. But I am glad to have had the honour to be able to solve some of them, and I am determined, if I continue as Minister, to find a solution for the one which we are debating tonight.
The hon. Member for Cornwall, North touched a chord in my own heart when he spoke about this being in many respects a regional problem. Wherever there has been heavy unemployment over a long time, earnings will be much lower. We are affected by it in Scotland. The North-East of England is affected by it, and Cornwall is affected by it. If we take what I call the tip of the iceberg—the 15,000 unemployed who are on the wage stop in National Assistance—there are a far greater number in Scotland and the North-East of England than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. The reason is that in those areas wages are lower than in other areas. The point made by the hon. Gentleman about Cornwall is one which I understand very well.
Looking at the Amendment, it is clear from what my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger) said that, if one were to accept it as it is, there might be very strong feeling in the country about it, and that it was the way to deal with the problem as it affects children.
I am not going to take any side this evening. I know where my own feelings lie, but what I want to find is a solution which will bring help to the families of the low wage earners.
For the benefit of hon. Members who did not hear the beginning of the debate, the proposals which have been put forward by hon. Members opposite would give entitlement to an additional family allowance, not to every family in the country, but to those families whose breadwinners are in full-time employment but whose incomes are below the non-contributory benefit scales laid down in the Bill.
I do not think that there can be any doubt on either side of the Committee or in the country of the Government's grave concern about poverty amongst the families of low wage earners. On 23rd February, the Leader of the Opposition expanded his Birmingham speech, and my hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio made quite clear the concern which we had and the examination which we were giving not only to the financial help but all the other forms of help that could be given to such families. They must all he taken into account if we are to find a real solution to this problem.
During the Second Reading debate, without any prompting at all, I told the House that the Bill did nothing to solve this problem, that as far as the wage-stop was concerned the 15,000 families would not have their problems solved by it. But I made it clear that various estimates have been given of the number of children of men in work who are suffering because the income for the family is below the level.
The hon. Member for Melton (Miss Pike) was puzzled about the figures given by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) during the Second Reading debate, and the figure that I gave. The figure which I gave, which might be anything from

200,000 to 300,000, was the number of families. The figure given by my hon. Friend was the number of people affected, and, of course, that was a very much higher figure than the number of families.
We were concerned about this problem long before we became the Government. If the hon. Member for Farnham criticises us for not having done the work, perhaps I might tell him that if some of the research work had been done, and some concern shown about this before we came to power, this might have been dealt with like some of the other matters have been, and we might have had a solution ready for introduction in this Bill.
We are not shelving this problem in any way. When discussing an earlier Amendment I told the House that on the 20th of this month we were beginning the field work of the survey into the circumstances of the bigger family with two or more children. My officers will visit more than 2,000 families during June. This will give us a great deal of information on which to base the kind of solution which I am determined we must find.
As I said during the Second Reading debate, we are not waiting until we get the results of this survey. We have been doing a great deal of work trying to find ways and means of finding an equitable solution to this problem, and this work is going on at the present time. My right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio was twitted by the Leader of the Opposition, but we have not waited for the review to be completed before bringing forward improvements. They have been coming forward. They have been passed into law, just as this will be when we are ready to do it.
I say to the Committee, and, in particular, to the hon. Member for Farnham, and to the Liberals, that until the results of the survey are available, and the Government have completed their study of the whole question of how best to relieve child poverty, it would be wrong to decide on, or indeed to rule out, any particular solution. I am not ruling out the suggestion which has been put forward tonight. I do not know whether it will be the right solution.
Quite frankly, I would prefer the solution which my hon. Friend touched on when she spoke, but I am so concerned about this matter, and so determined that something will be done, that until this work which I and other Ministers are doing as a matter of urgency is completed, and until we have the results of the survey, I shall not rule out any solution at all, though I must say that my leanings are towards the kind of solution that my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger) discussed.

It must be recognised that apart from any question of—

It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,

That the Proceedings of the Ministry of Social Security Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Miss Herbison.]

MINISTRY OF SOCIAL SECURITY BILL

Again considered in Committee.

Miss Herbison: I was about to say that, apart from any question of principle involved in the extension of means testing, its application to people in full-time work would bring some awkward, though not necessarily impossible, problems to solve.
One in particular is an accurate and fair measurement of current earnings for this purpose, which would be an important thing to get and on which the new Clause offers no guidance. The hon. Member for Farnham said airily, "Let the Minister decide." But the Minister would have to decide on certain criteria. These criteria have not been given, Since earnings will be taken into account in assessing resources, any increase in a man's earnings would affect the amount of the family allowance, which would cause real difficulties for the family. It might cause a lack of incentive in certain areas and one would have to be careful about that.
It would be wrong to introduce a radical and expensive new departure of this kind by Regulation. The Government regard the relief of poverty among the children of low wage earners as of great importance. I have said what we are already doing. When the Government are ready with their proposals for relieving such poverty, they will be presented to Parliament in the proper way with a full opportunity for discussion and amendment of any legislative measures required. That seems to me and to the Government to be the right way of dealing with this great problem. This is being examined urgently and when we are ready we shall bring forward our proposals.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: The Minister would have been much franker with the House if, instead of the reasons which she has given for refusing to accept the Amendment, she had told us that the Treasury had refused to give her the money. I am convinced that that is the reason. The one which she put up would not hold water because it is so feeble. I appreciate her compliment to my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), who raised this matter in no party political spirit. That is the way in which I intend to approach the subject.
No one in his right senses can believe the right hon. Lady when she says that she will not adopt the solution put forward because it might prejudice the ultimate decisions of the Government once the review has been completed. Surely she will not stand at the Dispatch Box and say that, after the review, she will do less for the low-wage-earning families with a large number of children than is proposed to be done in the new Clause.
I would have hoped that a solution on the lines of much enhanced family allowances for all recipients would have been in the Minister's mind. I hope that she will bear this in mind during the review which she is undertaking. By far the greatest proportion of allowances goes in Surtax and other tax allowances. Family allowances, National Assistance and National Insurance benefits form only a small proportion of the total. I could give the right hon. Lady the figures because in the last Session I asked a series of Questions on this topic.
We in the Liberal Party have come to the conclusion that the right solution to this problem is to sweep away the existing structure of family allowances, National Assistance, National Insurance benefits, Income Tax and Surtax allowances and replace them with a single and unified system of family allowances payable to everyone as of right. I will be delighted to send the Minister a copy of the pamphlet in which these ideas are more fully described.
I return to the immediate question facing the Committee. I accept that the Minister is correct when she says that this problem had been under consideration for a long time before the present Government came to office. In other words, it had been under consideration for a long time before 18 months ago. 13ut if it was of such great importance in the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and the Minister stressed that it had been, why was this survey of the low income families not initiated immediately the present Government come to power?
I understood that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had been instructed by the Government to undertake a complete review of all social security provisions, and and I was under the impression that that included family allowances and the problems of the low-wage earner with a large family. Now, apparently, this is not so. The right hon. Lady said on Second Reading—and she repeated this tonight—that a special survey is being undertaken into the circumstances of these families to determine the incidence of hardship among them.
I equally do not understand why the right hon. Lady imagines that there would be strong feelings in the country if the new Clause were accepted. Surely it provides us with the opportunity to deal with this problem. It would bring the total income of the low-wage-earning family up to at least what is considered to be appropriate for those who are not in employment. This would not prejudice any decision which the right hon. Lady might arrive at in the light of the review which she mentioned.
I agree that if the Minister does not have all the information which she needs to make a final decision, then this review is necessary, but she could take this in-

terim step tonight, bearing in mind that the Government's legislative programme is crammed full for as far ahead as we can see. The right hon. Lady said that there were so many problem left to her to solve by the previous Conservative Government that she practically did not know where to start. I have a certain amount of sympathy for her, but in that case why does she not take the opportunity given her by the new Clause at least to do something in the interim period while the review is under way and while, as we know, no additional time will be provided for social security legislation during the lifetime of this Session: that is, till next October?
To do something for these families in the immediate future would be a fair and reasonable step for the right hon. Lady to take, because it is utterly inequitable that people who are earning low salaries will in many cases receive less under the Government's proposals—bearing in mind that the right hon. Lady said that there were 200 such families—than people who are out of work. This is a direct incentive to people not to work, to remain unemployed, so that they can get the improved benefits which the Minister is providing in the Bill. I should have thought that that alone was enough to make the new Clause acceptable to the Government. The socially undesirable effects of persuading people to remain idle at a time when Labour is so short hardly needs emphasising to the Committee. That is not my main criticism of the right hon. Lady's attitude. I am sure that, as a humanitarian person, she must agree that her attitude is fundamentally wrong when she comes to reflect on it.
That anybody with a large number of children who is earning should receive less than the equivalent person who is out of employment seems to me absolutely crazy, and I hope that, although it is very late and the Minister has already made a speech on this subject, my short remarks will have given her time for further reflection and that she will provide some better answer than she gave on the previous occasion.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I am very much afraid that the right hon. Lady has not convinced this side of the Committee. Towards the end of her speech


she implied that she would consider a proposal put forward by her hon. Friend and go into the whole question of abolishing tax allowances, which will take a very long time. We must press the Amendment to a Division.
I rather thought that the right hon. Lady would object to the way in which I moved the Amendment. When one has as weak a case, as she has, it is a good policy to abuse the other side's advocate. The suggestion that there is something wrong in taking a party point on this is a very odd point of view for hon. Gentlemen opposite to take. This is a serious Bill, the provisions contained in it are serious, and the suggestion in the Amendment and the new Clause is serious.
It is frivolous to suggest that we should not make party points from this side of the Committee. I never noticed that that was an objection when the right hon. Lady was in opposition. Hon. Members opposite must get used to the idea that they are the Government. They must not go on expecting us to refrain from criticising them for fear of hurting their party feelings and simply because they say this is too important for party criticism.
In any case, I was not indignant about the delay. I know that whatever the right hon. Lady will try to do the delay will be interminable. I was indignant about the fact that there was no hint of this delay in the promises. It is not the party line that is rather squalid, but leading the poorer people and those who need help to believe, as the right hon. Lady has said, that she is taking the opportunity to rectify the wrongs which the Tory Party left behind—to promise that the Ministry of Social Security will do this and lead people to believe that they will be helped, and, now that the opportunity has come at last, to disappoint them. Once more they will be let down, as years ago, the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Minister of Housing and Local Government said they were let down before.
Make no mistake about it, if the Labour Party go into the Lobby tonight to vote against the Amendment it will be voting for keeping, until the Government can make up their mind, a quarter

of a million families and perhaps three-quarters of a million children living below subsistence level.

Miss Herbison: I do not think that there are any further points made by the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) with which I need deal. My hon. Friends and the people of the country will still have faith in the Government, particularly when they look at our record in social security over the past 18 months. An important point was made by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), who asked why we did not start the survey a long time ago. Last year our officers were engaged in another survey, a survey of the financial and other circumstances of old people. It was impossible for us to have two such important surveys going on at one time. This survey is a much smaller one, so we can get it done quickly. I can give an assurance that the results will be processed as quickly as possible.

Mr. Lubbock: If this is a much smaller survey and it does not take the same number of staff as does the survey on the old people, why could not the right hon. Lady have invited some universities to co-operate and to undertake it simultaneously with the other survey?

Miss Herbison: This smaller survey is being carried out. I do, in fact, keep very closely in touch with the people doing research work in this matter, and have given some help to them. We now await the results of our inquiry into the circumstances of these families. Whatever research is done, we want to make the greatest use of it.
The hon. Member for Orpington made only one other point. It would have been a most telling one if it were correct. He said that it would be an incentive for a man to lose his job and remain idle because, under the Bill, he would receive more than he could when in work. That is not the case. That is why the point made by the hon. Member is a false one, and why we have 15,000 people suffering a wage stop. If those other people came out of work they, too, would suffer the wage stop. What the hon. Member for Orpington considered to be one of his most important points is not valid.
I ask my hon. Friends to reject the Amendment, in the full knowledge that we are urgently trying to do something about he problem.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes, 116. Noes, 181.

Division No. 18.]
AYES
[10.18 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Glover, Sir Douglas
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Astor, John
Glyn, Sir Richard
Pink, R. Bonner


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)
Gower, Raymond
Pym, Francis


Baker, W. H. K.
Grieve, Percy
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Batsford, Brian
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Bell, Ronald
Gurden, Harold
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Renton, Rt. Fin. Sir David


Biggs-Davison, John
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Black, Sir Cyril
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Blaker, Peter
Higgins, Terence L.
Roots, William


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hill, J. E. B.
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.
Holland, Philip
Russell, Sir Ronald


Boyle, Rt Hn. Sir Edward
Howell, David (Guildford)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Braine, Bernard
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Scott, Nicholas


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Sharples, Richard


Bromley-Davenport,Lt.Col.SirWalter
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)


Buchanan-Smith,Alick(Angus,N&M)
Jopling, Michael
Sinclair, Sir George


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Kimball, Marcus
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Burden, F. A.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Campbell, Gordon
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Chichester-Clark, R..
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Cooke, Robert
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Corfield, F. V.
Loveys, W. H.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Costain, A. P.
Lubbock, Eric
Vickers, Dame Joan


Grosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Crowder, F. P.
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Marten, Neil
Wall, Patrick


Currie, G. B. H.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Ward, Dame Irene


Dayidson,James(Aberdeerishire,W.)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Whitelaw, William


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Monro, Hector
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Doughty, Charles
Morgan, W. G. (Denbigh)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Worsley, Marcus


Elliot, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Wylie, N. R.


Errington, Sir Eric
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Younger,Hn. George


Eyre, Reginald
Nott, John



Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Osborn, John (Hallam)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Mr. Jasper More and


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Pardoe, J.
Mr. Anthony Grant.




NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Garrow, Alex


Alldritt, Walter
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Ginsburg, David


Anderson, Donald
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Gourlay, Harry


Archer, Peter
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Gray, Dr. Hugh


Armstrong, Ernest
Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
Gregory, Arnold


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Delargy, Hugh
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Dempsey, James
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Lianelly)


Barnes, Michael
Dewar, Donald
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Barnett, Joel
Dickens, James
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Baxter, William
Dobson, Ray
Harper, Joseph


Beaney, Alan
Doig, Peter
Hattersley, Roy Hazell, Bert


Benn, Rt Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Henig, Stanley


Bidwell, Sydney
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret


Bishop, E. S.
Edwards, William (Merloneth)
Hilton, W. S.


Blackburn, F.
Ellis, John
Hooley, Frank


Booth, Albert
English, Michael
Horner, John


Boston, Terence
Ennals, David
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Ensor, David
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Howie, W.


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Faulds, Andrew
Hoy, James


Brown,Bob(N'c'tie-upon-Tyne,W)
Fernyhough, E.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)


Cant, R. B.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&St.P'cras,S.)


Coe, Denis
Floud, Bernard
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Coleman, Donald
Forrester, John
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Concannon, J. D.
Fowler, Gerry
Jones,Rt.Hn.SirElwyn(W.Ham,S.)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Judd, Frank


Cousins, Rt. Hn. Frank
Freeson, Reginald
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Galpern, Sir Myer
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Gardner, A. J.





Kerr, Russell (Felthem)
Norwood, Christopher
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Leadbitter, Ted
Ogden, Eric
Silkin, John (Deptford)


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Orme, Stanley
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Lee, John (Reading)
Oswald, Thomas
Slater, Joseph


Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Snow, Julian


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Spriggs, Leslie


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Paget, R. T.
Swain, Thomas


McBride, Neil
Palmer, Arthur
Symonds, J. B.


McCann, John
Park, Trevor
Varley, Eric G.


MacColl, James
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


MacDermot, Niall
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Wallace, George


Macdonald, A. H.
Pentland, Norman
Watkins, David (Consett)


McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Weitzman, David


Mackintosh, John P.
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Wellbeloved, James


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


McNamara, J. Kevin
Price, William (Rugby)
Whitaker, Ben


MacPherson, Malcolm
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Whitlock, William


Marquand, David
Rankin, John
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Mendelson, J. J.
Redhead, Edward
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Mikardo, Ian
Reynolds, G. W.
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Milian, Bruce
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Winnick, David


Molloy, William
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Moonman, Eric
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Woof, Robert


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Roebuck, Roy
Wyatt, Woodrow


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Rogers, George
Zilliacus, K.


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William



Moyle, Roland
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mulley, Rt. Hon. Frederick
Ryan, John
Mr. Charles Grey and


Murray, Albert
Sheldon, Robert
Mr. George Lawson.


Newens, Stan
Shore, Peter (Stepney)

To report Progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Charles R. Morris.]

Committee report Progress; fo sit again Tomorrow.

EXCHANGE CONTROL (GOLD COINS)

10.28 p.m.

Mr. Terence L. Higgins: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Exchange Control (Gold Coins Exemption) Order, 1966 (S.I., 1966, No. 438), dated 19th April, 1966, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th April, be annulled.
On 26th April the Government took three measures. First of all, the Bank of England introduced a measure to prevent the use of gold in the manufacture of gold medallions. Secondly, the Board of Trade introduced an amendment of the open general import licence—

Sir Douglas Glover: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask who on the Government benches is dealing this Order?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order for me.

Mr. Higgins: I was saying that the Government introduced three measures—the first of them a measure by the Bank of England to prevent the use of gold coins in the manufacture of gold medallions.
The second measure by the Board of Trade amended the open general import licence, which had the effect of prohibiting, from 27th April, the importation of gold coins, medallions and other gold pieces, except for items that were over 100 years old. Thirdly, there was a measure, which we are considering now, which was laid before Parliament, and this imposes restrictions on the buying, holding and selling of gold coins minted after 1837.
I am delighted to see that the Financial Secretary has now joined us and will be able to consider the points with which I am now going to deal.
In the Treasury announcement of 26th April, it was said that the purpose of the three measures was to prevent the loss to the reserves caused by the increasing use of gold for the manufacture of medals and medallions, by the free import of gold coins and medals and by the hoarding of gold coins. We on this side of

the House want to make it abundantly clear that we should support any measure which is necessary to protect the reserves and the balance of payments.
We should do this even if the measures had been made necessary by the Government's own mismanagement of the economy. It is relevant to ask why is it that the importation of gold has tended to increase and why it is that people have been encouraged to hoard gold. We should be perfectly clear that this is because the Government have failed, lamentably, to stabilise the cost of living and slow down the rate of inflation.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may refer incidentally to the point that he is making, but he must debate the Order.

Mr. Higgins: My point was that because the Government have failed to halt the rise in the cost of living people are encouraged to hoard gold coins and this Order has been necessary for this reason. This is an important point.
I was also saying that we should support the Government, even though this Order has been made necessary by their own mismanagement of the economy. But we on this side of the House believe that the Order before us is unnecessary, in our opinion, to secure the objectives which the Government have said it is necessary to achieve. It is very difficult to understand why the Government should have introduced this measure at all. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that this has been yet another ill-thought-out measure, introduced in a hurry, and that its implications have not been fully examined.
We feel that it is unnecessary and, for reasons which I shall mention later, likely to have very undesirable results. This measure is concerned purely with internal transactions and, in particular, with the hoarding of gold. These clearly have no direct impact upon our balance of payments which are looked after by the first two measures introduced by the Government. This measure goes far beyond what is necessary to protect the balance of payments and sterling; we do not feel that it deserves our support and are calling for it to be annulled. The only possible benefit which this Order might have as far as the position of sterling


is concerned is that it calls into the reserves a small number of gold coins which have been hoarded by certain individuals.
On 17th May I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he would estimate the total value of the hoardings of gold coins and what proportion he anticipated would be given up as a result of this Order. He replied that no estimate was possible, but said that there was evidence that the hoarding of gold coins was developing on a substantial scale. It is significant to note that no attempt was made to answer the second part of the Question. This is not surprising, because it is clear that this measure is not likely to be effective and it is impossible to say what proportion of the hoardings are likely to be given up.
The next point which arises is that the Order is likely to prove unworkable in practice. Almost without exception future transactions will need prior Treasury sanction and all existing collections which have not been given permission by the Bank of England will be broken up. This will involve a tremendous amount of paper work and will mean that the Bank of England must spend time and money on the valuation of individual gold coins.
A further point is that even if the Order is made to work in practice by taking rigorous action, it will prove unenforceable. Quite simply, how is the Treasury or the Bank of England to discover who has more than four gold coins dated after 1834? They will have no means of ascertaining this, so that the law will fall into disrepute because it will be unenforceable. This is clearly a major objection to the measure. It is not only unnecessary, but it will, we suggest, prove to be unenforceable.
It would appear that the Government will rely largely on individuals coming forward and offering to give up the gold coins which they hold. The unfortunate point about this is that the terms on which the Government offer to take over the gold coins which are surrendered will include an element of confiscation, in the sense that the value of the assets which people hold would he greater if they did not do what the Government are asking

them to do. This element of confiscation is another objection to this proposal.
In addition, however, we will have a situation in which the Bank of England is asking people to come forward and, if they are said to be genuine coin collectors, to go to the Bank of England and prove that they are genuine coin collectors and, therefore, entitled under this new Order to hold more than four coins after the date of 1834.
But people are not merely asked to register, as it were, the gold coins in the category which I have just mentioned. They are also asked to give information on pre-1838 gold coins, silver coins before 1816, silver coins 1816 to 1919, silver coins 1920 and later, base metal coins pre-1860 and base metal coins 1860 and later. In short, it is quite apparent that information will be required which goes far beyond what seems to be necessary for the purposes of the Order.
On top of all this, the question arises of whether the Bank of England is competent to evaluate whether someone is a genuine collector. Is the Bank of England sufficiently expert in this matter? It seems quite possible that some genuine collector will be denied the right to continue as genuine collectors simply because the Bank of England happens to feel that they are not.
It is significant that in answer to a Question which I asked today, the First Secretary replied that up to 12th June, 1,230 applications had been made, of which 934 had been allowed and 265 had not been allowed. If, however, one makes inquiries among those expert in numismatics, one finds great doubt whether the decisions by the Bank of England have been competent. This is causing grave concern among genuine collectors of gold coins some of those refused permission may be genuine collectors.
That brings us to the final important point, which is concerned with what effect this totally unnecessary and unenforceable measure will have on the operation of the gold coin market in the United Kingdom. On the day on which tonight's Prayer should originally have been heard, a letter appeared in The Times from a number of experienced people in this market who stressed the point which I have made, namely, that


the proposals are unnecessary, and went on to point out that the effect of this Measure will be very bad indeed for the gold coin market in this country. It went on to point out that there were many operators in the gold coin market overseas who would be only too glad to step in and to take the place of the British gold coin market. This means that the external effects on the balance of payments might be adverse rather than favourable. On this ground, too, there are other serious considerations which need to be borne in mind.
This Order means that the gold coin collectors are having to fill in substantial details in the forms which the Bank of England has provided, and this is so even if they hold only a very small proportion of gold coins in their total collection. They are being asked to divulge to the authorities details of personal chattels which are not required in any other field except in respect of actual taxation. One has to ask whether it is fair that coin collectors should have to rive details of their collections in this way when the collectors of pictures, stamps or books do not have to do so.
This leads one to consider why it is that the Treasury is simply considering gold in this context. If people are holding gold because they have no faith in the Government's policy on the stabilisation of the cost of living and on curtailing the rate of inflation, then surely if they are prevented from going into gold it is likely that they will put their money into some other form of asset which may also be a hedge against inflation and against lack of confidence in sterling. We may well find that this provision is extended not only to gold coins but to silver coins.
I am tempted to quote from Oscar Wilde's "Importance of Being Earnest" on a matter which is not unconnected with the Worthing line. Miss Prism says,
Cecily, you will read your political economy in my absence. The Chapter on the Fall of The Rupee you may omit. It is somewhat too sensational. Even these metallic problems have their melodramatic side.
We should ask ourselves whether the Government will take action against other specific assets which are a hedge against inflation.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I regret interrupting the maiden appearance of the hon. Member at the Dispatch Box, but he must not let Oscar Wilde tempt him out of order. He must keep to the Order before the House.

Mr. Higgins: I will certainly do so. My point was that the Order is a very dangerous precedent. It controls the holding of gold coins by private individuals, and we do not know whether we shall later face proposals concerning the holding of too many silver coins. It is a dangerous precedent of which we should beware for it may be extended to other real assets, such as diamonds.
If one examines the Order it is apparent that it is not necessary in order to achieve the objectiveness which the Government said they were trying to achieve in the Treasury Press release of 26th April. It is irrelevant to the protection of our gold reserves, and the amount of additional funds or gold assets which it may bring into our reserves will be trivial compared with the cost of collecting it. It has further objections. It is not likely to prove workable, there are grave doubts on whether the Bank of England is qualified to appraise whether someone is a genuine collector and ought to be allowed to hold gold coins and it raises the very real question of why there is no right of appeal. Why is the Bank of England to determine whether people may remain genuine collectors with absolutely no right of appeal whatever? This is surely a situation which the House ought not to allow to be created. The Order is further open to objection, as I have said, in that its effect on the gold coin market may actually be unfavourable to the balance of payments.
For all those reasons, we on this side are frankly puzzled about why the Government have introduced such an Order. It seems to us to be quite unnecessary and we shall look forward to hearing what reasons the Financial Secretary puts forward to justify it. In the absence of any adequate justification and coverage of the issues I have raised, I am sure that it is right to pray to have the Order annulled.

10.46 p.m.

Mr. Percy Grieve: I am grateful for the opportunity to support my hon.


Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) against an Order which seems to represent regulation run mad. The Exchange Control Act, 1947, put as stringent restrictions on the ownership of gold in any form by the citizens of this country as are known throughout the world today. We alone of the civilised countries of Western Europe impose these stringent restrictions on the ownership of gold.
The Exchange Control Order made under the 1947 Act was designed to mitigate a little the severity of the Act's provisions. It permitted collectors and other private citizens to own small quantities of gold coin. That was done pursuant to an undertaking given to the House by the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Mr. Glenvil Hall, during the Committee stage of the Exchange Control Bill of 1947, when he said
The Treasury would not dream of making the keeping of a few coins by an individual. either as a museum piece or for sentimental reasons, an offence under the Bill".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th December, 1946; Vol. 431, c. 391.]
On the basis of that undertaking, for such it was, by the Government of the day and on the basis of the mitigation of the severity of the 1947 Act which the 1947 Order provided, many people over the last 19 years must have built up collections of gold coins, including coins of a date later than 1837. At those, among other persons, this Order is aimed, and unless they can satisfy the Bank of England in various ways—and the Bank is the final arbiter—those persons will have to give up their coins.
The Order has three vices. First, it is totally unnecessary for the defence of the £, or any purpose for which exchange control could legitimately be used by the Government of the day. How is the currency, the £, or the protection of the £, to suffer in any way because collectors have in their possession coins of a date later than 1837?

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Is my hon. and learned Friend saying that the final arbiter is the Bank of England? If one of our constituents wrote to us because his case had not been approved by the Bank and we got in touch with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, could not the Chancellor himself, if satisfied our constituent is a bona fide collector, override the decision of the Bank?

Mr. Grieve: I am not aware that that is the case. I have no doubt the Financial Secretary will tell us if that is so. As I understand the position, the Bank is the final arbiter in this matter.
Then, in addition, this Order makes a grave inroad into the liberty of the subjects who own small quantities of gold. It is not pretended that coins of a date later than 1837 exist in any vast quantity which will upset the £ or which are going to enable anybody to drive a coach and horses through the exchange control Regulations. Secondly, if brought into force, it will enable the Bank and a vast number of officials to pry, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing suggested. into the private affairs of ordinary individual citizens. If they have to declare gold coins of a later date than 1837, where are we to stop? The day will come when hon. Members opposite and the Government of the day will say people must declare jewellery, pictures, works of art. Then where do we stop?

Mr. F. A. Burden: Many ladies, as my hon. and learned Friend probably realises, have bangles on which they have gold coins. So if a lady has five gold coins on a bangle and does not declare them, will she be committing an offence.

Mr. Grieve: Indeed. By taking an example one can test Orders of this kind, by showing to what ridiculous lengths they will go, and the ridiculous powers which are given under them. Suppose a child is given four gold coins—if he is lucky—by his godparents. He will have to declare them, or his parents on his behalf will have to declare them, and not only that, but if there is a collection of pennies dated after 1837 they will have to declare those as well. It is really absurd.
But it does not stop there, because the vice of this Order is much worse than that. It really is unenforceable. People will be disposed to say, "I have got five gold coins; I will leave them at the bank where they are, or in drawer at home." Or a person may say, "I have got six, but I shall not declare two." That is the sort of temptation to which some people will be subjected by this Order, and that is to destroy


moral respect for the law, and in trying to force through the House an Order of this kind, which has that effect of destroying respect for the law, the Government of the day are doing, I submit, very grave disservice to the cause of Law and order in the country. For these reasons, among many others, I support my hon. Friend in praying against this Order.

10.54 p.m.

Mr. R. B. Cant: I want to be a little more lighthearted, because I think this a very useful Order. I do not think it will have the appalling effects on the integrity of people the Opposition have tried to make out. I would say, even more briefly than the hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve), that there are three reasons why this Order should be approved. The first one is that, quite simply, we are committed in balance of payments terms, whatever the Opposition may say, because according to noless an authority than the Tories' bible, the Economist, in an extremely disrespectful article headed "No medals for Jim"—

Sir Harmar Nicholls: That is an apocalypse.

Mr. Cant: That may be so. The article estimated that in 1965 the import of gold for this particular purpose under discussion tonight rose by 50 per cent. and amounted to no less than £7½ million.
I am quite prepared to accept that £7½ million may be a bagatelle to hon. Gentlemen opposite, but it is still a large item. When we consider that the use of gold in home-produced coins amounted to a figure of well over £1 million, it may be that that will not break the country, hut the Order is something which should not only be done but should have been done earlier. It is something of which we should approve, because the whole thing is assuming the proportions of a racket. The public should be protected as consumers, and the Order is a simple piece of consumer protection.
It has been confessed that the gold content of these coins varies between 21 and 51 per cent. of the resale value, and that on average it is something in the region of 29 per cent. However much importance one might attach to

aesthetics, I still believe that the gullibility of the public is being exploited. One member of the honourable profession of merchant bankers who was asked to comment on the trade said that, for the most part, these coins were nothing but junk, and he would certainly not give more than the gold content, plus 2 per cent. It is rather interesting that there is not a single producer of these medals who is prepared to repurchase them, which is significant.

Sir D. Glover: As the Order is dealing with gold coins, presumably it is in fact dealing with gold coins. If a coin is only 21 per cent. gold, perhaps the Financial Secretary can tell us whether that is a gold coin within the meaning of the Order.

Mr. Cant: I will accept that, and I come to my final point, which links both medallions and coins. This is pandering to the element of irrationality which is developing in the public, for one reason or another. It is all very well to talk about a hedge against inflation. That may be true, in part. But in no sense—medallions or coins—can one concede the fact that people in this country are acquiring coins in the same sense as people in India—that great necropolis of the East, as Keynes put it—or in the same sense as French peasants. In that development, we have a considerable element of the mysticism which is attached to gold, and, as we have done so much since 1931 to banish gold from our monetary system—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now getting quite wide of the Order that we are discussing.

10.59 p.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I am grateful to have an opportunity to contribute a short speech on the subject, and I must congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that on the first occasion on which I appeared at the Dispatch Box, you had to interrupt me no less than six times. I hope that I shall not stray out of order too often tonight.
I support the Government in trying to deal with the racket in gold medallions which has been mentioned.


They are worth very little in gold value, and, in buying them, the public are being considerably exploited.

Mr. Burden: On a point of order. Surely the Order deals with gold coins and not gold medallions?

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Speaker Yes, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) for already making this point. We are discussing gold coins. I am an ignoramus in financial matters, but I do not think that medallions, which have been referred to twice tonight, are coins in the sense of this Order.

Mr. Cooke: If medallions are not covered by the Order, they ought to be, because it is in respect of these that the major racket is being conducted.
If by this Order the Government are seeking to stop the racket of trade in current coins of the realm and ordinary gold coins that were at one time in circulation, I would support them, because one has seen the most outrageous advertisements inviting people to speculate in these coins. The point that I want to make is that this Order seems to be detrimental to the genuine collector, and it is on this aspect that I should like to explore the Government's mind.
The Government surely would not wish to get collectors to surrender proof sets of coins, proof coins which could probably never be replaced, or at any rate only with great difficulty, and not without paying outrageous sums of money in the future. We are told that if a person is a collector—and I, alas, am not, certainly not of gold coins—he is allowed to hold only four gold coins.
There are a number of sets of gold coins issued after 1837 which are of interest to collectors. Gold coins issued after that year—and indeed for every reign, and certainly there are three coinages of Queen Victoria which could come into this category—and proof coins which are of principal interest only to collectors, are very difficult to obtain in absolutely first-class condition, and certainly when they have been through the hands of anyone but an expert are likely to be damaged, and if they have been seriously damaged would be very difficult to replace.
We have been told that the Bank of England is to be the arbiter to decide who is a genuine collector. I think that the Government should make it clear that any person who holds one only of every proof gold coin minted after 1837—one only of each one; in other words a complete collection—should, as of right, be regarded as a genuine collector of gold coins, and there should be no nonsense about it, because that person surely has an unchallengeable right to be treated as a collector.
I do not want to detain the House any longer. If medallions are not included, they ought to be.

Sir D. Glover: Does my hon. Friend mean coins of this realm?

Mr. Cooke: I am sorry if I did not make it clear. I meant coins of this realm, and I was dealing with coins of the realm—coins issued during the reign of Queen Victoria, Edward VII, and so on. The genuine collector holding no more than one of each of the proof coins of this realm after 1837 should be protected, and if medallions are not included they certainly should be, and there should be no question of the genuine collector having to surrender coins which he got with great difficulty, and which he can have no possible opportunity of replacing in the future.

11.3 p.m.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: In his attractive maiden speech at the Opposition Dispatch Box my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) had the temerity to refer to Oscar Wilde. I have neither the wit nor the other propensities of that gentleman, save only that I hope I can be as lucid in trying to put briefly what I want to say.
I rise almost entirely because in the fine arts I have collected almost everything except gold coins, but I have been in very close touch with the authorities on this matter—Sotheby's, Christie's, and elsewhere—before rising to say what I do tonight, which I do almost entirely for the fine art trade and for the tourist trade.
I rise to speak because I believe that I can see an effective way whereby the Government can achieve what they want to achieve, and, at the same time, the


House can achieve it. I think that this Order arises from not perhaps quite as deep thought as the Treasury would have liked to have given to it, and I hope that after recent further consultations the Treasury may come to the conclusion that it can find another way of achieving the purposes which it seeks.
Although I concede what my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) said about medallions, the racket which arose and which prompted the Treasury to move in this direction was this this country exports a large amount of gold coins. The racketeers were exporting them one morning to Switzerland and buying them back in the afternoon under open general license. They were thus defeating the purpose of the export by building up a substantial sum of money for heir own benefit in this country. That s what we are trying to prevent.
I think that we would all agree that this is not a good thing for the nation. The question arises, if one wants therefore to prevent people from importing into this country gold bullion in the form of gold coins, what is the best way of achieving that? One way, of course, is to do as the Government have done. They have done three things—first, they have introduced measures to prevent the use of gold for the manufacture of gold medallions, second, they have prohibited altogether the importation of gold coins, gold medallions and other gold pieces into the country, and, thirdly, and this is the point—[Interruption.] I should be grateful if the barracking from the Left would stop.
Thirdly, they have imposed a complete restriction in this country on buying, holding or selling gold coins minted after 1837. We need take no objection to the first two of these measures. It is the third which concerns me. In the United States of America, the Government also prevent the import of gold coins minted after 1837, but they do not prevent the free circulation of those coins within the United States. We do not need to stop the circulation of gold coins in this country.
It does not matter if the Financial Secretary and I want to swap coins or anything else which may be our hobby.

What matters is that we should not allow the loss to our gold reserves by the import into this country of gold coins from overseas, with one exception, where they are of numismatic value.
If they come into this country to form part of collections, there is no reason why they should not come in. The whole matter turns upon whether we can define what is of numismatic value. The Treasury's difficulty on this matter is that when they considered this before they were unable to decide whether they could define what is of numismatic value. I see no reason why this House should be concerned with deciding what is of numismatic value, because the trade, the auctioneers and the collectors are content to accept the decision of the Treasury on this matter—

Mr. Robert Cooke: Mr. Robert Cooke rose—

Mr. Rees-Davies: I will give way in a moment, but I want to develop this theme.
The whole matter therefore turns on what is of numismatic value. Who will decide it? What will happen is that when the coins arrive in this country to go for sale at Christie's, Sotheby's, or Baldwin's, or one of the big dealers in this field, those are the very dealers who will advise the Treasury at the port of entry. Therefore, provided that it is decided to allow this subject to a restriction on import licences, the desired object can be achieved by means of an import licence instead of by the Order.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I am sure that my hon. Friend would concede that the only coins of this realm which could conceivably be of any numismatic value would be proof coins minted after 1837.

Mr. Rees-Davies: My hon. Friend is quite right that after 1837 they are extremely limited. But there is and has been for some time a considerable auction trade in coins after 1837—the proof sets to which he referred. What happened? The Order came into effect and the immediate result, at the very next auction at Christie's, was a drop of 15 per cent. in value.
I assure the House that they have completely knocked the bottom out of the fine art market in respect of gold coins minted after 1837. This is of concern not only to the trade. The Treasury has


always shown great care in its desire to protect the fine art trade and I am sure that the Financial Secretary also has this matter very much at heart.
What is the true picture? One really cannot have the Treasury deciding who is and who is not a collector. If one went tomorrow to try to purchase a gold coin minted after 1837, unless one produced a licence the auctioneer concerned would not be able to sell one. Furthermore, he does not know whether or not he can sell a person's collection. He not only does not know whether he may sell the collection, but he does not know whether he can permit the person to buy. This is, therefore, a ludicrous situation.
If one is an old and established collector of many years standing one might be able to get permission, but a great many collectors are only just beginning. Is the Treasury to say, "If you have not got a collection built up over the years you are not entitled to become a collector"? Many people, including hon. Members, are becoming collectors in the fine art field. They are being encouraged to do so and it is a good thing that they should become collectors.
If we must stop the importation of gold generally, that is one thing. Therefore, the Treasury should put this matter under licence—not open general licence as existed before, so that one could buy back the gold coins one sent out in the morning—and apply a form of licence which says that the only gold coins minted after 1837 which will be permitted entry into this country are those which are licenced by the Treasury. That would give complete discretion to the Treasury to say, "You are permitted to undertake a transaction only for coins of numismatic value".
If the Government take this course they will achieve their object fairly and effectively and we will not need to have a lot of involved restrictions which affect the liberty of the subject, trying to decide whether or not a person is a collector, considering a right of appeal from the Treasury, and so on. All these things could be swept aside and the Government would achieve their aim. I trust that the Financial Secretary will

give very careful consideration to this matter, because along these lines we could permit the free circulation of these coins, protect the rights and hobbies of collectors and, at the same time, secure the aims of the Government.

11.14 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Niall MacDermot): The hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) asked why the Order had been introduced. It is necessary to go back a little into the history of this sphere of exchange control to understand the need for the Order in its present form.
The object of the Order is to put a stop to an unnecessary and undesirable strain on our reserves resulting, first, from the large-scale importation of gold coins, a very large number of them being our own sovereigns, and, secondly, the manufacture of gold medallions, which is not the subject of the Prayer.
As the hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) pointed out, we have had exchange control since 1939. The 1947 Act required all United Kingdom residents to offer for sale any gold coins or bullion they owned. An Order was made at the same time which was intended to exempt and protect genuine coin collectors, numismatists, which exempted all gold coins minted before 1816 and also post-1816 coins which had
.. a numismatic value greater than the value of the gold content which would have been received had the coin been sold to an authorised dealer.
This was intended to draw the very distinction which the hon. Member for Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) sought to draw between coins of numismatic value and coins of bullion value—bullion material, whose value is determined solely by the gold content, as opposed to numismatic material.
For a time that Order worked well, and gold came into the reserves as a result of those measures, but early in the 1950s it became apparent that every gold coin, even those of no interest to numismatists, could be sold at more than the gold content price. I throw that back at the hon. Member for Worthing if he suggests that our measures have led to people wanting to hoard coins for their capital appreciation. This started in the early 1950s.
Unfortunately, the very coin dealers whom the hon. Member for Thanet is asking me to accept as our guides and mentors in this matter lent the weight of their expert authority to classifying this additional value as being numismatic value. As a result of the evidence which they gave in the courts, the courts, in effect, decided that this value qualified for exemption under what was intended to be an exemption Order purely for numismatists.
The result was that the Exchange Control (Collectors' Pieces Exemption) Order drove a coach and horses through the Exchange Control Act. The previous Government did nothing about it. Perhaps that is not quite fair, for they did one thing about it. A circular was sent from the Home Office to chief constables, telling them that the Order was a dead letter, and that they need not try to enforce it any more.
It is interesting to have some figures to see what happened as a result of the previous Administration's allowing this part of the exchange control to become a dead letter. The other day the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) asked my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer the estimated loss to the reserves from the import of gold coins and medallions in each of the last five years, and I answered this question.
In 1960, imports of gold coins were worth £62,000; in 1961, the figure was £152,000; in 1962, it was £7,682,000; in 1963, it was £5,757,000; in 1964, it was £6,400,000; and in 1965, it was £8,582,000. This is a remarkable increase in interest in numismatics.
Let me be quite fair about it. A large part of that increase included imports on behalf of non-residents, which would not have been reflected in our balance of payments. But it is estimated that imports by residents have averaged £1½ million a year since 1962, compared with the very small sums before.
Much of this consisted of current sovereigns. This country manufactures sovereigns and exports them to maintain the value of and the respect for our sovereigns, which are still held widely abroad. It was suggested that the number which were manufactured was trivial, but in the last year under the previous

Administration—1963–10,405,000 were manufactured, and in 1965 the figure was 5,400,000. They are sold abroad largely to keep down and prevent counterfeiting. There is no loss to our revenues or reserves as a result; in fact, there is a slight gain to them.
But there is an immediate loss when these coins return and are purchased by United Kingdom residents. One month after being exported, sovereigns have been reappearing on sale here at prices representing a premium of 27 to 36 per cent. above the gold content value. In some cases, they have been advertised for sale here in lots of 1,000 at a time. Clearly, this has not been a numismatic interest.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Mr. Rees-Davies rose—

Mr. MacDermot: I am coming to the hon. Member's point. I hope that he will hear me out first.
I will not deal with the question of medallions, except to say that equally there has been a substantial increase in the use of gold and a drain on our reserves in this trade, which the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) also criticised. We took the view that firm action must be taken to stop this hoarding, not only in our national interest, but to comply with our international duty to check hoarding and the misuse of gold. We felt that the action to be taken must be effective this time, and that while allowing the buying and selling of coins of genuine numismatic interest to continue we must not allow the numismatic exemption to open the door to all the abuses it did before.
The Order allows the holding, buying and selling of gold coins minted in or before 1837 to continue unrestricted. Coins after that date are still legal tender. That is why that date was chosen, and not the 1816 date of the earlier Order. It allows a United Kingdom resident to continue to hold up to four post-1837 coins which he already holds. It requires United Kingdom residents to obtain permission to hold more than four post-1837 coins. It is not right to say that it forbids people to hold them; it requires them to obtain a licence to do so. That is the crux of the whole Order. Permission will be readily granted by the


Bank of England to genuine collectors in respect of genuine collections.
I can illustrate this point by saying that one application was recently received from someone who was accepted as being a genuine collector but who had also done something which was not quite so genuine; he had acquired no less than 500 gold sovereigns of one minting—1959 English gold sovereigns. The House may think that that was an unusual degree of specialisation for a numismatist. He was required to reduce his holding of those 500 coins, but otherwise he was granted an open licence to con-tine to acquire fresh coins.
An application is not required to be made each time one wants to buy a coin; the genuine numismatist will get a general licence leaving him free to buy from any authorised dealer—Seaby's, Baldwin's, and so on—and he can go to the auctions as before and buy. This practice will continue to be allowed. The vast majority of the permissions which have already been given are of this general kind, leaving these collectors quite free to add to their holdings. The applicants who were unsuccessful did not establish themselves as being coin collectors.
This exemption is intended for numismatists and coin collectors and not for people who seek to put forward the argument that they hold coins on sentimental or other grounds, which could lead to a completely unworkable form of control, wide open to abuse.

Mr. Rees-Davies: If the hon. and learned Gentleman can answer this question it will clear up the whole matter—

Mr. MacDermot: I am coming to the hon. Member's point. I beg him to be patient.
Any United Kingdom resident who does not obtain permission to retain more than four post-1837 coins must offer the remainder to an authorised dealer in gold, namely, a bank or a gold bullion dealer, or an authorised coin dealer or trader in coins. This will ensure that he gets the genuine numismatic value of a coin over and above its bullion value. This may answer the

allegations of confiscation made in the letter in The Times.
The so-called surrender price includes the genuine numismatic value, and the authorised price is the London market price and the price promulgated by the previous Administration in the London Gazette of 23rd March, 1954. I reject the criticism that this destroys the open market. There are no restrictions on dealings by non-residents. Genuine collectors will be able to establish their position and will get a general licence which will enable them to continue to trade. Of course, the dealers themselves are authorised.
It has been suggested that there is no right of appeal. I agree with the intervention of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls). The responsibility is that of the Treasury. The Bank of England is acting as the agent of the Treasury and it is open to anyone who feels that he has not had a fair deal from the Bank of England to take the matter up with his Member of Parliament who will then take it up with Treasury Ministers. There is nothing new in this. This prevails in the whole field of exchange control, and it is generally felt that in this field the Bank of England operates very humanely and fairly.
The Bank of England has received two main deputations since the Order has come into force. One was received from the main dealers and auctioneers to whom the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet referred. They argued for what the hon. Member argued, namely, that it would be sufficient to rely only on the control of imports and controlling the use of gold in the making of medallions and medals, but to leave a free market in the country. My answer is, first, that to do that would lead to a premium on the gold coin market here within this country. Because of the artificial restriction, the coins would acquire a higher price here than their world numismatic price. This in itself would be a very strong incentive to smuggling and, as a result, would result in a loss to our reserves.
A further practical difficulty is that we would be back on the horns of the old dilemma which we experienced under


the exemption Order of 1947, namely, of determining what is numismatic material and what is bullion material. The hon. Gentleman says that we can rely on the advice of the experts such as Messrs. Baldwin, Spink, Seaby and so on, but it is. those very experts who in the evidence that they gave helped to make the previour order unworkable.

Mr. Rees-Davies: With respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, the decision would always be that of the Treasury, and, therefore, the Treasury would only give the import licence if it were satisfied that a coin was of numismatic value.

Mr. MacDermot: Surely the hon. Gentleman can see that if the highest numismatic experts in the land say on oath that they are unable to draw a distinction between numismatic value and hoarder's value—for that is what it is—it is impossible for the Treasury to fly in the face of what they say. This is the simple reason why that proposal is unworkable. The proof of the pudding will be in the administration by the Bank of England.
The other deputation received by the Bank of England was from the editor and managing editor of the numismatic journal Coins and Medals. They put a lot of questions to the Treasury and they have published the answers for the assistance of coin collectors. I should

like to read what they said in their leading article:
Hindsight suggests that some such move"—

as this Order—
could have been expected, for the vogue for these pieces attracted many new buyers for whom capital appreciation, from being one legitimate factor in collecting, came to be virtually the whole motive.

The end result of their interview was this:
…no good citizen would wish to oppose the basic aim of national financial stability, and we advise readers to accept the control in a responsible and co-operative spirit. We are satisfied that the authorities intend to administer it with common sense, sympathy and understanding. Bone fide collectors will suffer a little nuisance, but the vast majority not much more than that suffered by the ten per cent. of the population selected for the recent census. There should be very little interference with collecting in so far as it is a hobby, serious or light-hearted, and not purely an investment in a lightly tax-burdened type of security.

I ask the House to accept that advice and to help in putting this Order into practice. It is a necessary Order that safeguards the interests of numismatists and helps to protect our reserves. It will be operated fairly and humanely. I suggest that there is no reason to pray against it.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 94, Noes 169.

Division No. 19.1]
AYES
[11.30 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Gower, Raymond
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Astor, John
Grant, Anthony
Pink, R. Bonner


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)
Grieve, Percy
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Baker, W. H. K.
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Batsford, Brian
Gurden, Harold
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Biggs-Davison, John
Hastings, Stephen
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Black, Sir Cyril
Higgins, Terence L.
Roots, William


Blaker, Peter
Hill, J. E. B.
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Holland, Philip
Russell, Sir Ronald


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Howell, David (Guildford)
Scott, Nicholas


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hunt, John
Sharpies, Richard


Braine, Bernard
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Sinclair, Sir George


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Burden, F. A.
Kimball, Marcus
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Chichester-Clark, R.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Cooke, Robert
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Vickers, Dame Joan


Corfield, F. V.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Wall, Patrick


Crowder, F. P.
Loveys, W. H.
Ward, Dame Irene


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Currie, G. B. H.
Marten, Neil
Whitelaw, William


Dalkeith, Earl of
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Doughty, Charles
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Worsley, Marcus


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
More, Jasper
Wylie, N. R.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Morgan, W. G. (Denbigh)
Younger, Hn. George


Eyre, Reginald
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh



Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael
Mr. Francis Pym and


Glover, Sir Douglas
Nott, John
Mr. R. W. Elliott.


Glyn, Sir Richard
Osborn, John (Hallam)





NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Gourlay, Harry
Newens, Stan


Alldritt, Walter
Gray, Dr. Hugh
Norwood Christopher


Anderson, Donald
Gregory, Arnold
Ogden, Eric


Archer, Peter
Grey, Charles
Orme, Stanley


Armstrong, Ernest
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Oswald, Thomas


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Lianally)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Barnes, Michael
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Palmer, Arthur


Baxter, William
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Pardoe, J.


Beaney, Alan
Hazell, Bert
Park, Trevor


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Henig, Stanley
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Bidwell, Sydney
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Bishop, E. S.
Hilton, W. S.
Pentland, Norman


Blackburn, F.
Hooley, Frank
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Booth, Albert
Horner, John
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Boston, Terence
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Price, William (Rugby)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Howie, W.
Pursey Cmdr. Harry


Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Hoy, James
Redhead, Edward


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Reynolds, G. W.


Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Coe, Denis
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Coleman, Donald
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&St.P'cras,S.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Concannon, J. D.
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Robinson, W. 0. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Roebuck, Roy


Cousins, Rt. Hn. Frank
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Judd, Frank
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Sheldon, Robert


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Davies, Ednyted Hudson (Conway)
Lawson, George
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Leadbitter, Ted
Silkin, John (Deptford)


Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Delargy, Hugh
Lee, John (Reading)
Slater, Joseph


Dempsey, James
Lestor, Miss Joan
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Dewar, Donald
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Swain, Thomas


Dobson, Ray
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Symonds, J. B. Varley, Eric G.


Doig, Peter
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Dunnett, Jack
McBride, Neil
Wallace, George


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
McCann, John
Watkins, David (Consett)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)
MacColl, James
Weitzman, David


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
MacDermot, Niall
Wellbeloved, James


Ellis, John
Macdonald, A. H.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


English, Michael
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Whitaker, Ben


Ennals, David
Mackintosh, John P.
Whitlock, William


Ensor, David
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Faulds, Andrew
McNamara, J. Kevin
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Fernyhough, E.
MacPherson, Malcolm
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Marquand, David
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mendelson, J. J.
Winnick, David


Floud, Bernard
Mikardo, Ian
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Forrester, John
Milian, Bruce
Woof, Robert


Fowler, Gerry
Moonman, Eric
Zilliacus, K.


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)



Freeson, Reginald
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)



Galpern, Sir Myer
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gardner, A. J.
Moyle, Roland
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Garrow, Alex
Mulley, Rt. Hon. Frederick
Mr. Alan Fitch.


Ginsburg, David
Murray, Albert

SCOTLAND (HIGHER EDUCATION)

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lawson.]

11.40 p.m.

Mr. John P. Mackintosh: I want to draw attention to the financing of Scottish higher education, particularly on the technological and scientific side. This means focusing attention on the one special institution for scientific and technological education and research designated by the Robbins Committee in Scotland, the former Royal College of Science and Technology, now the University of Strathclyde.
I appreciate that on this point the recommendations of the Robbins Committee were not accepted in the letter—the Committee recommended the setting up of five such institutions—but they were taken in the spirit in the sense that the Government made a special grant of £1 million available on capital for the existing three institutions to which the Robbins Committee pointed, and Strathclyde got its fair share, one-third of this sum.
The real point that the Robbins Committee emphasised—and I think that it is still true—is that in Britain there is still a slant against science and technology; it does not have adequate prestige. The Committee put it quite strongly and said:
We believe that a further striking innovation is required if this country is to demonstrate beyond all doubt that it is prepared to give to technology the prominence that the economic needs of the future will surely demand.
The Robbins Committee wanted the Imperial College, London, the Manchester Institute of Science and Technology and Strathclyde, plus two more institutions, built up to the level of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, or the Technical High Schools of Zurich and Delft. The Robbins Committee put its finger precisely on the point when it stated that this whole group needed financial support similar to that given to the Imperial College during the past decade. This simply has not happened. The Imperial College, London, has continued to forge ahead and Manchester has made some progress, while the third in-

stituation, in Scotland, has lagged very far behind.
I am not making a purely Scottish or parochial point. These three institutions are educating 10,215 students and are supposed to be in the forefront of undergraduate training and advanced research. Therefore, Strathclyde handles a significant share of the British total. Of the 10.000 students, the 3,335 at the Imperial College, London, are financed in recurrent grant to the tune of £1,258 each per annum. The 2,473 students at the Man. chester Institute get over £931 each spent on them per annum, but the biggest number, the 4,407 students at Strathclyde, cost only £521 each per annum. I emphasise that this is not for capital grants. One might expect that land and buildings cost more in London than in Manchester or Glasgow. I am discussing recurrent grants, the money spent on paying for staff, technicians, books and laboratory equipment that has to be financed year by year.
The students who are turned out are supposed to reach the same high standard. We have the same external examiners. What we expect the staff at Strathclyde to do is to produce first-class honours students at 41 per cent. of what it costs in London and 56 per cent. of what it costs in Manchester.
Let me put these figures another way. This year, Strathclyde receives a recurrent grant of £2·3 million. If this institution was financed on the scale at present awarded to the Manchester Institute of Science and Technology, it would receive £4·1 million. If it was financed on the level of the Imperial College, London, it would receive £5·5 million.
This is not just a Scottish point, because Strathclyde takes in students from all over Britain—in fact, it has over one-third of all the students in this type of institution in Britain—but as this debate is being answered by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland I would like him to note that if the Robbins recommendation had been adopted, if Strathclyde and Manchester, but particularly Strathclyde, had been financed at the same level as the Imperial College, London, even over only three years an extra £10 million would have been spent in Scotland, and this would have had a


quite significant impact on the Scottish economy.
I want to anticipate the kind of answer which the Minister may well give. He may well say that this is the responsibility purely of the University Grants Committee. I have reservations about the whole method by which the universities are financed and by which overall university policy is determined, but that is a wider point than that being discussed tonight.
Let me remind the Minister that in their statement on the Robbins Report the previous Government said that they strongly endorsed the Report's emphasis on the building up of technological universities, and responsibility for continuing that policy was accepted by the present Government. Scottish Ministers have often said that it is their responsibility and their policy to increase the number of school teachers in these subjects, and it is in this field that the greatest shortage of teachers exists.
The Prime Minister is completely committed. I recall, as I am sure we all do, his famous speech at Scarborough during the 1963 Labour Party conference when he said:
We must harness science to Socialism and Socialism to science".
In that speech he put the production of scientists as the first priority for a new Labour Government. He said:
We are going to need a revolution in our attitude to scientific education".
I hope that there will be no attempt, therefore, in the Minister's reply to say that this is not the concern of the Government.
I want to turn to the issues involved. Why should a technological university of the type of Strathclyde be so shabbily treated? I think that the answer must, in part, be seen against the background that the Scottish universities as a whole are worse off than their English or Welsh equivalents. In 1965-1966—the present year—the average recurrent grant per student to the Scottish universities is £569. In England and Wales it is £718 per student. This is a very large gap.
If one presses Ministers on this point one usually gets the reply that in Scotland degrees are often of a four-year duration whereas in England they are only three years, and so roughly the same

amount is paid on a Scottish student if we multiply it by four years as is paid on an English student if that is multiplied by three years. This is not a fair argument, because Scottish students go up to university a year earlier than English students, and if we want an equivalent we must take account of the amount which the Exchequer spends on English students during the final year, the sixth form year, at school as well as the amount spent during the period at university.
It is also said that in Scottish universities there is a lower percentage of students reading for honours degrees and that these students are more expensive. I do not think that this is as true as has often been suggested, and certainly, at Strathclyde, it is the opposite of the case, because it accepts only students reading for honours degrees and those who do not want to go on transfer to the ordinary degree. Sixty-six per cent. of its graduates last year were honours graduates.
This is against a background that Strathclyde gets not only a lower recurrent grant than scientific and technological institutions in England, but a lower grant than Scottish universities and the lowest grant per student of any institution of higher education of university status in the whole United Kingdom.
If I seek an explanation for this discrepancy, I do not think that it is in either of the arguments which are put forward. I suggest that it is simply because these institutions, and particularly Strathclyde, have been cheap in the past. It is a bit hard, but what it boils down to is the old Biblical maxim:
Unto everyone that hath shall be given".
Those universities which have been expensive get a percentage rise and therefore, get more, and because Scottish universities have been cheap, and Strathclyde extremely cheap, they get proportionately less.
Where it runs counter to Government policy is that the Robbins Report specifically said, and both the past Government and present Governments have agreed, that we needed to break loose from this background and to give these institutions concentrating on science and technology a special boost, extra aid, and prestige, to give them the force which they lacked in our society—and not only


in our society for, let us admit, within our universities system, too, these subjects and institutions are fairly lowly regarded. This does not happen except in one isolated case, that of the Imperial College.
Let us now look at some of the consequences. Strathclyde is run on a shoestring. For many departments it is hard to reduce tutorial classes to the small groups which they should be and which they are in some other universities. It does not have the same sports facilities. Not all the students can have Wednesday afternoons off, because laboratories have to run the whole time. There is no wonder that when one goes round the schools and talks to the masters that one does not find it highly commended as often as other universities to up and coming boys and girls leaving school.
Let me put these blunt facts: last year, for lack of space, Strathclyde turned aside 110 fully qualified applicants in engineering; 35 fully qualified applicants in chemistry; 16 in mathematics and physics; 114 in business and administration; 220 in the social sciences. This was after the present Prime Minister had said in 1963 that we simply could not as a nation afford to neglect the educational development of a single boy or girl.
This year, for the coming October, it has been decided that for financial reasons Strathclyde cannot expand its intake at all and yet undergraduate applications for next October are as of today up by 1,336 over last year and postgraduate applications are up by 188. The Corporation of Glasgow, last week, sent a deputation to the two universities in the city pointing out that young men and women had not got places last year and asking the universities to expand their intake. For the financial reasons which I have given, this is impossible at Strathclyde.
Let us look further afield. The biggest shortage among teachers in Scotland is of teachers of science, mathematics and technology. The Scottish Education Department's own figures show that while the number of school children sitting the higher grade examinations has gone up by 50 per cent. since 1963, the number coming forward for higher science has gone up by only 40 per cent. and the number coming forward in

technology has gone up by only 13 per cent.
The reason for this is that our scientific and technological university is the poor relation of the universities and is turning out fewer people as teachers, so that the school teachers in science and technology are less well qualified and therefore the parents and children back down the line are influenced by this whole atmosphere into adopting the traditional pattern of going into the arts, the classics, the traditional subjects. In this way we are laying up trouble for ourselves, not merely now but for 25 years ahead as these children should be going through the universities into industry and research.
I appeal to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary tonight not to give the stock answers. In Scotland we have argued year after year that we want more science-based industry and more innovation. When in opposition, the leaders of my party said again and again that this must have high priority. I ask them to give it this priority now. We want to go back to the vision of the Robbins Report which on this matter was quite specific and said that there must be a judicious fostering of some institutions more than of others.
Instead, I am afraid that there has been judicious neglect of some scientific institutions more than others. I hope that we can now change that.

11.55 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Milian): The subject which my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) has raised tonight is extremely important and I hope that he will accept from me at once that nothing I may say should be taken to suggest that the Government are in any way complacent about the need for expanding technological education. I do not agree with a number of things my hon. Friend said and, in particular, I thought that he rather exaggerated some of the figures which he quoted, as I hope to show in a minute. Because I do not accept the rather overdrawn picture which he has painted, it does not mean the Government do not consider this to be a very important question indeed.
If I may, on this question of figures, take two which my hon. Friend has just quoted, I think that we are all very concerned about the need to increase the number of pupils at the schools taking science subjects in the Scottish Certificate of Education. I would just say to my hon. Friend that the numbers taking the higher passes in science subjects in 1965 was about 9,800 as compared with 8,500 the previous year. These figures, of course, are not as high as we would like them to be, and, in particular, we have this very serious problem of shortage of teachers in the schools in science and mathematics, but the figures are not, I think, nearly as bleak as my hon. Friend may have suggested.
Similarly, so far as the number of qualified students who may be refused admission to Strathclyde is concerned, I do not wish to take exclusively Scottish applicants, but I think that it is well known that the total number of Scottish pupils leaving school with an attestation of fitness for Scottish universities who do not, in fact, find places is very small indeed by comparison with the kind of figures my hon. Friend has quoted.
I think that there is always a danger here if one simply quotes what is happening at one particular university without taking account, for example, of the fact that very many pupils apply for admission to a number of different universities, and there is a good deal of duplication of applications which can give rise to highly misleading statistics. Certainly, I would dispute very strongly indeed that there is anything like the large numbers my hon. Friend has mentioned turned away from Strathclyde this year without opportunity of pursuing a degree course in science or, indeed, in any other subject at some university or another.
In talking specifically about the financial allocations to the universities and in making certain comparisons between Strathclyde and other universities, my hon. Friend has raised, as he very well knows, the very important and fundamental question of the basis upon which allocations of grant to universities are made. As the House knows, allocation of funds to universities in Great Britain is made by

the University Grants Committee, which is an independent body. The total amount available is, of course, decided by the Government, and it is there that the major Government decision is taken, but the allocation of the total sum, once it has been made available to the University Grants Committee, is, of course, made by the U.G.C. itself in the light of national needs which are communicated to the Committee by the Government and, of course, in the light of its own judgment about particular universities' needs and priorities. Information about allocations which are made by the Committee is generally available. It is published in the annual return of the U.G.C.
It has always been recognised that Government responsibility does not extend to individual allocations. I think that one might have a very interesting argument as to whether this is the right system, but this not the place in which to conduct that argument; for the purpose of this short debate we must take the system as it is laid down at the present time.
I am under some inhibitions in talking about detailed allocations and making the kinds of comparisons and my hon. Friend has made, because these matters are strictly for the University Grants Committee and not directly for the Government. But my hon. Friend has had the opportunity, which was facilitated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, of discussing these matters and, in particular, the allocations to Strathclyde with the Chairman of the U.G.C. only today. Although I would not necessarily expect my hon. Friend to be satisfied completely with the results of that discussion, as he has made quite clear, I hope that he has been able to have explained to him the basis on which the U.G.C. makes its allocations.
Since my hon. Friend compared Scotland with England unfavourably, I might say that there are Scottish members on the U.G.C. Three of the 20 members are Scottish. The appointments are made in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, and officials of the Scottish Education Department attend meetings of the Committee and its sub-committees as


assessors, and, of course, we receive its papers. There is no question of Scotland not being represented on the U.G.C. and we in the Scottish Office not being aware of what it is doing.
So far as recurrent grants are concerned, my hon. Friend has quoted a lumber of figures comparing Scottish universities as a whole with English universities and, in particular, comparing the annual grant allocations for recurrent grant per student made by the U.G.C. to the three leading technological universities, Strathclyde, the Manchester Institute of Science and Technology, and Imperial College, London. In those comparisons, he has drawn attention to the fact that the Strathclyde figures are very much less than the figures for the other two.
I want to say, first, that these figures ought to be treated with a certain amount of caution. There are a number of different circumstances which affect the figures. For example, they are very much affected by the student mix between one faculty and another, because some faculties are more expensive than others. Similarly, they are very much affected by the proportion of post-graduates, which varies very much from one institution to another. Scottish universities as a whole have a lower percentage of post-graduate students than English universities as a whole, though even that may be misleading because there is a tendency for postgraduates to be concentrated in particular universities like Oxford, Cambridge, and so on. But the proportion of postgraduates makes a considerable difference to those figures of annual recurrent grant per student, as the tables which were produced by the U.G.C. and published by the Estimates Committee in its recent Report on the work of the U.G.C. demonstrate.
There are also special circumstances which affect the figures, and there is one particular circumstance which affects the Strathclyde figures. My hon. Friend did not mention it, although when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science gave him an answer on these points on 4th May, he specifically drew attention to the fact that, in the year 1964-65, Strathclyde University absorbed the Scottish College of Commerce, with about 1,200 students reading non-technological subjects.
As my hon. Friend knows, many of those students were not reading subjects to degree standard. The numbers taking subjects to degree standard were only a small percentage of that total of 1,200. The effect of importing into the Strathclyde figures that very large proportion of students who are, on the whole, doing work below degree level is to reduce the recurrent grant per student very considerably. It dropped by nearly £100 between 1963-64 and 1964-65. That figure is carried into the figures for 196566 and 1966-67, and will be carried into the figures for the years ahead so long as that is one of the characteristic features of Strathclyde University. This, more than anything else, has, I think, brought the Strathclyde figures out at what is prima facie an extremely unfavourable level.
My hon. Friend said that Strathclyde, along with the Manchester Institute and the Imperial College, was one of the technological university institutions which shared in this special allocation of £1 million over the academic years 1965-66 and 1966-67. He did not suggest—and I was glad that he did not—that Strathclyde's share of that £1 million was an unfair one, because, in fact, its share amounted to £279,000, which is roughly one-third of the total sums of money which were made available.
In addition, out of the other £400,000 which was allocated by the U.G.C. to the technological departments of universities other than the three leading technological institutions, a certain amount also found its way to Scotland, so, again, I do not believe that on the basis of these figures one can suggest that there has been an unfair discrimination against Scottish universities.
With regard to capital allocations, I think that, again, on the face of it, the figures look unfavourable to Strathclyde. One of the reasons for this is that in the past much the largest concentration of Government capital allocations has been made to Imperial College. This was a deliberate policy which dates back at least to 1953, and, as my hon. Friend knows, very considerable sums of money were made available in capital expenditure to Imperial College. That money is now beginning to run out.
Leaving aside this money under the Jubilee Scheme, as it was called, the


figures for Strathclyde, and, indeed, for Manchester, look rather better in comparison with Imperial College. For example, in the years between 1964 and 1970 the allocations to Strathclyde for building work are about £4¼ million, and this figure by itself is, I think, an indication of the importance which the U.G.C. attaches to Strathclyde University as a major technological institution.
The U.G.C. has just been making its quinquennial visits to universities before considering its proposals for the next quinquennium. The U.G.C. has visited Strathclyde University, and I am sure that its allocation for the next quinquennium will be made in full awareness of the university's development plans which have, of course, been explained to the U.G.C.
To sum up, I think that prima facie there is a case to be made for the kind of statements that my hon. Friend made this evening, that on the face of it the allocations to Strathclyde University are not as generous as they might be if one compares them in particular with Imperial College, London. What I have tried to show is, first, that there are a considerable number of qualifications which have to be imported into the argument. I have also tried to show that there are a number of special circumstances relating to Strathclyde, and for that matter there have been a number of

special circumstances in the past relating to Imperial College, London, but I am sure that what my hon. Friend has said this evening will be noted by the U.G.C. and by everyone else.
As my hon. Friend knows, a good deal more information about expenditure on universities is now being published. Some of that has been stimulated by the extremely interesting Estimates Committee's Report which was debated in this House in January of this year. So far as the Government are concerned, working within the kind of framework of responsibility which I have mentioned, this additional information and discussion are all to the good, and I should like to assure my hon. Friend again that we attach very considerable importance to this subject, not least to the expansion of technological education in Scotland, and not least to the continued expansion and development of Strathclyde University.

Mr. Norman Buchan: I have been disappointed in one way in my hon. Friend's reply—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Monday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at ten minutes past Twelve o'clock.